Are Capitalism and Democracy interchangeable? Prior to the 17th-18th Century, Democracy as we now know it, did not exist. Yet trade took a large amount of people's time and effort. At first the wealth of the East trickled into Western Europe mainly by overland routes. Shipping costs were high. Goods were transported by camel or horse caravans. After 1453, the Moslem Turks controlled Constantinople, which was the crossroads of important trade routes. Western European merchants sought sea routes to the Orient to import goods directly. and outfitted ships for sea captains sailing in search of new routes.

At the time that Columbus "discovered" America, what was he searching for? Who paid to outfit him and why?

You are, of course, correct that deTocqueville could not have predicted in detail the various advances that have come into being since his time. Consider, however, his quote (above) beginning: "I am full of apprehensions . . ."

1 - One of the greatest mariners in history
2 - A visionary genius
3 - A mystic
4 - A national hero
5 - A failed administrator
6 - A naive entrpreneur
7 - A ruthless and greedy imperialist.

He did have a long and varied maritime career and did considerable reading of geographical and theological literature.

Robby

In 1963 archaeologists uncovered the remains of a Viking settlement on the northern tip of Newfoundland. According to radiocarbon dating it was occupied in about AD 1000. This was the first proof that Europeans had lived in North America before Columbus.

I am interested in reactions from anyone here in this forum but especially from our Canadian friends and also from Jergen in Denmark.

The reverse of the Icelandic coin depicts the statue of Leifur Eriksson by Stirling Calder, which was donated to the Icelandic nation by the U.S. Congress in 1930 to commemorate the millennium of the Althingi (parliament) and is now located in front of Hallgrimskirja Church in Reykjavik. On the obverse is the stylised image of the guardian spirits of Iceland familiar from current Icelandic coins. Proceeds from the Icelandic issue will be allocatd to the Leifur Eriksson Foundation which will award study grants to Icelandic students in the USA and vice versa.

It can be seen from the above that the government of the United States takes most seriously the belief that the Vikings were the first Europeans who "discovered" the continent now called North America.

Robby

Robby

The Indian peoples sometimes greeted Europeans warmly, provided them with food, and taught them important new survival skills. In some cases, they perceived them as being divine, or at least spiritually powerful. Some used the newcomers as allies against old enemies. Others saw them as new enemies, to be grudgingly tolerated or strongly resisted. Native people were quickly disillusioned by treachery or mistreatment at European hands.

The Europeans brought technologies, ideas, plants, and animals that were new to America and would transform peoples' lives: guns, iron tools, and weapons; Christianity and Roman law, sugarcane and wheat; horses and cattle. They also carried diseases against which the Indian peoples had no defenses.

This interaction among groups produced a complex mosaic of relationships. The Europeans "discovered" the Indians but the Indians also "discovered" the Europeans. America was created out of this mosaic. What reaction do you have to deTocqueville's remark (above) which begins "The growth of nations . . .?"

The Spanish took the lead in exploring and colonizing the New World. The Spanish were especially well prepared by history to conquer, occupy, populate and exploit new lands and assimilate new people. America thus became the new frontier-land for those people used to its ways and with the military, diplomats and administrative arms at their disposal to face the challenge.

One adventurer, Juan Ponce de Leon, sailed from Puerto Rico in 1513. He landed on a new shore that he called Florida. He was interested in exploration and slave trading. He also wanted to find a fabled fountain whose waters made men perpetually young. He returned to Florida in 1521 to built a settlement, but was slain by Indians. In 1513 Vasco Nunez de Balboa, the Spanish adventurer, became the first European to see the Pacific Ocean from American shores.

In 1539 Hernando de Soto came from Spain to the east coast of Florida. From there he trekked overland to the Mississippi. He wandered into what is now Arkansas and Oklahoma and later floated down the Arkansas River to its mouth. In 1542 he died and was buried in the Mississippi. Francisco de Coronado in 1540 crossed the deserts and plains between what is now western New Mexico and central Kansas and found the pueblos. Earlier in 1524-25, Estavan Gomez, a Portuguese sea captain but serving the king of Spain, explored the coast of North America from Maine to New Jersey.

Considering all the above, why is Spanish not the language of the United States? Why do we not follow the laws, manners, and customs of Spain?

Robby

Happy Thanksgiving, Canada

I am in agreement with Peter Brown about the world's history of countries conquering other countries. Do you think we will ever become a truly civilized world? We think that we have come a long way and then we receive news about the wars in Africa, Russian countries and of course, the sad mess in Jerusalem.

Has anyone read about the Chinese and their sailing accomplishments? They were far ahead of the Europeans centuries earlier but few people seem to mention that fact. They did much exploring and their ships were similar to the tall ships. (I think that I read this just last year which just shows to goya, that in spite of our technology, we have a long way to go when it comes to history and its study.)

We discuss many different things depending on what is happening in America at the time. Today is Columbus Day in America. As Columbus discovered America (some people say), we began to discuss the origin of America - who discovered it and who are the ancestors of the people who live in America today. In Japan, does anyone know about Columbus?

We also discuss Democracies in different part of the world. Not every Democracy is the same. I believe that Japan is now a Democracy. Please share with us how Democracy works in Japan. How is it the same as Democracy in America and how is it different? Nobody here is an expert. We just give our opinions. Thank you again for being with us.

Robby

Pete says that the "Australians' fight for Democracy in still fresh in their minds." How about those of us in America? Is our fight for Democracy still "fresh in our minds" or do we take it for granted?

Mit Aizawa, another good friend from Japan, calls our attention that but for the Allied Forces, his nation could today be a communistic nation. And so, speaking of young democracies, his nation has been a Democracy only 55 years. In your nation, Mit, do you see the need to regularly "fight for Democracy?"

And in Denmark, Jergen, do the Danish people find it necessary for constantly "fight for Democracy?"

And what about those of us the United States and Canada? Is Democracy here to stay without a fight?

May I again call everyone's attention here to deTocqueville's remark (above) beginning with the phrase "I am full of apprehensions . . ."

Eloise, you speak about the Protestants in France having been "dominated and suppressed." This makes us think of previous postings where we began to realize that this New World and other places (Australia for example) were settled by "unwanted" people. As Emma Lazarus wrote: "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearing to breathe free, the wretched refuse" were the ones who gave us the Democracies we now have. You point out the importance of "stability, freedom, and strong morals" in creating a "strong base" for expanding and the place of women in this expansion.

What comments do others here have on this topic?

Vespucci came to the world's attention chiefly through the publicaion in 1503 and 1504 of two brief letters he purportedly wrote to Lorenzo de Medici. The letters were both scholarly and entertaining, including the news that the natives of the New World would have sex with anybody. The letters were reprintd in every European language and came to the attention of the cartographer Martin Waldseemueller of Saint-Die, Lorraine. He published geography texts and thought it only appropriate that Amerigo Vespucci's name grace the new land. The naming of America was thus a bit capricious.

I recall seeing so many Dutch names in upstate New York. The Dutch formed the Dutch East India company and dispatched Henry Hudson, an English sea captain, to find a shortcut to the Orient. Hudson entered the Hudson River in 1609 and ascended it to the site of Albany.

What I keep wondering, considering all that activity going on by Spaniards, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedish, and what have you -- why are we today speaking English and following English customs, laws, and manners? Spain claimed and settled most of Florida and the Southwestern region of the present United States. France colonized Canada, the valleys of the St. Lawrence, Ohio, Mississippi, and Alabama rivers. The Dutch settled in the Hudson Valley of North America. Sweden laid claim to the Delaware River valley in North America. England eventually planted 13 colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America. It was not until the 19th Century that most colonial disputes were ended either by treaty or by national independence movements.

English reign over the colonies barely served to conceal the great ethnic diversity of the settlers. The 17th Century saw the arrival of Germans, Bohemians, Irish, Poles, Scots, Dutch, French, Finns, Italians, Swedes, Danes, South Slavs, and other nationalities. Of the non-British colonists, the Germans who settled heavily in Pennsylvania and Georgia were probably the most numerous.

What is or was it about the English that furthered their dominance? Any reaction to deTocqueville's remark (above) in his comment beginning "The world which is rising . . .?"

While we are on the sub-topic of the origins of America, let us not forget that there was also a New Sweden. Sweden entered the race for the colonization of the New World in 1637 with the formation of the New Sweden Company. Peter Minuit, who had switched his loyalties from the Dutch to the Swedes, helped this trading organization to found Fort Christina (now Wilmington, Delaware) on the Delaware River in 1638. The Swedes also established Fort Krisholm in 1647 and captured Fort Casimir (now New Castle, Delaware) from the Dutch in 1651.

The expansion of Russia into North America began during the reign of Peter the Great, the czar who ruled from 1689 to 1725. Communities and fur-trading posts were established at Captain's Harbor on Unalaska Island in 1773, Kodiak in 1792, and New Archangel (now Sitka) in 1799.

The question continues -- with all those nations zooming around this land, why are we now speaking English and following English laws, customs, and manner? Do you agree with Stephanie that it was because the English were good organizers and came here to stay?

The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States, often referred to as "the Court of Last Resort." It is the expositor of the U.S. Constitution. It marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, between state and state, and between government and citizen.

There is little doubt that the next president will have a large role in shaping the nation's 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal, the level just below the Supreme Court, and possibly the Supreme Court itself. Whoever is elected will necessarily have the opportunity to alter the direction at the level of the federal courts of appeal and may well also have the opportunity at the Supreme Court level. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court agrees to decide ever fewer cases each year, the Appeals Courts have taken on greater importance as their rulings often remain the law of the land.

As determined by the Constitution, the people vote for the President -- they do not vote for federal judges, that is not directly. As can be seen, however, they vote for them indirectly by choosing a president with a particular philosophy of government.

Without referring to the current candidates (many political forums available for this on the Senior Net,) what are your views concerning the wisdom of the system of checks and balances? In addition to our voting for the President and for various members of the Congress, are we also, in effect, voting for federal judges?

According to Julian Knowles, an international human rights lawyer in London, England would now have a written Bill of Rights enshrined in a single document and containing the same sort of guarantees that Americans have had since 1791. "We have always trusted the executive and judiciary to protect our rights, but it's been a matter of trust only," he said. "This document sets out in clear terms what these rights are."

As far back as 1215, Magna Carta began to define the limits of the powers of Britain's rulers. But Britain does not have a written constitution, nor an American-style Bill or Rights. Instead, its citizens have always had what are known as negative rights -- that is, they have been allowed to do anything they want, unless there is a law specifically forbidding it.

Robby

The Apprendi decision invalidated a New Jersey hate-crime law under which defendants received longer sentences if their criminal actions were motivated by prejudice. The finding of prejudice was made by the judge, using the "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof. Under the Apprendi decision, the jury had to make such a finding "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Is that difficult to understand? Check out deTocqueville's remark (above) beginning with "The judicial organization. . ."

By the same token, it is my belief (I could be very wrong here) that most people from other nations do not understand our Constitutional mandate of balance of power. Our Founders contemplated a democracy where government was to serve the people, not rule them. In order to achieve this, government was to be divided up into three branches. Each branch would have the ability to supervise and regulate the other two. This system was to be known as the "checks and balance system".

I tend to believe, in addition, that not only people from other nations but the majority of our own citizens in America, while they understand the responsibilities of the President and the Congress because they vote for them, do not truly understand how the Supreme Court works and, in addition, perhaps do not often think about it because they have no vote in the matter.

I will go a bit farther than even this. It is my belief that the majority of American citizens cannot explain in fairly understandable detail what the Bill of Rights is, its relationship to the Constitution, how it came into existence, and how it directly affects each citizen.

Am I being unfair here? Do you agree with deTocqueville's comment (above) which begins with the phrase; "The power invested. . .?"

Traditionally, the issue of court appointments has had little effect in modern presidential elections. This year is very very different. How the federal bench is shaped in the next four or eight years could have a profound effect on such issues as the extent of federal power in relation to the states, the constitutionality of affirmative actions programs, the lengths to which the government may go in aiding parochial school students and how much states may be permitted to limit abortion rights. In a sense, this is the single biggest issue before the country in this election in terms of differences betwen the two candidates.

Do you folks believe that the majority of voters throughout the nations are thinking in terms of the coming Supreme Court?

Robby

One factor that could alter all the speculation of how either candidate would select judges is the eventual political make up of the Senate, which screens the nominees through the confirmation process. The kind of people a President nominates for the bench often depends on whether the Senate is controlled by his party or the opposition and by how much. Whether we are happy with the result or not, the system of "checks and balances" seems to work.

Robby

We were determined on that date of September 7th, 1787, to be the first nation dedicated to the proposition that all power and authority comes from the people, and that the government is created only to serve the people.

I believe (if wrong, some one here will correct me) that the President's appointment has to be confirmed only by the Senate.

Robby

Kestutis Zadvydas was born in 1948 in an American-occupied region of Germany that later became part of Lithuania. He came to the United States as a child and became a legal permanent resident. In 1966, he was convicted of attempted robbery in New York City. In 1974, he was convicted of attempted burglary, again in New York. Deportation proceedings were begun. He was released into the community and disappeared for a decade. He resurfaced in 1987 in Virginia where he was arrested for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Out on bail, he fled to Houston. He gave up several years later and was convicted in Virginia in 1992. He served a two-year prison terms and the INS decreed that he should be deported.

Where? Neither Germany nor Lithuania wold take him as he was not a citizen of either land. A federal judge in Louisiana declared that he should be released after 90 days. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans said he could be held beyond the 90 days - that even though he "may in a sense be stateless," he may eventually be deported, somewhere.

The Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to decide what shold be done with Mr. Zadvydas. This is a nation of immigrants. Our choice of President may determine the philosophies of the future Supreme Court Justices.

Robby

Kiwi: No question that America is addicted to polls, even when there is no election going on. We seem to be eternally wanting to know about ourselves. Is this true in New Zealand?

Idris: What does "dropping a Writ" mean?

Robby

1 - What may be the most significant test of government regulation in decades is the one under the Clean Air Act.
2 - Another case which could prove to the most important in the series of recent cases in which the Justices have carved out a widening area of state immunity from the reach of federal statutes is the question of whether states may bs sued for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act.
3 - In addition, a congressional redistricting case from North Carolina gives the court a final chance before the next round of post-census reapportionment to clarify its position on the role of race in the drawing of district lines.
4 - And, in a First Amendment challenge to restrictions on the kind of advocacy that lawyers in federally financed legal services programs can offer clients, the court will revisit the increasingly important issue of what strings can be attched to government grants.

The Justices have taken their seats in the glare of an election-year spotlight. They have served together for more than six years. No Justice has given any indication of retirement plans, but the sense that change is inevitable permeates the opening of the term this year.

Do you folks agree or disagree with the thought that indirectly you are this year also voting for Supreme Court Justices?

You find the examples of the types of cases the Supreme Court will be trying in this coming session very frightening. I continue to wonder if the majority of American citizens realize the power that this third branch of our government wields. For example:--

1 - Last year the Court ruled that states may not be sued for discriminating against older workers. The question now for this term is whether states maay be sued for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act. This Act requires all employers to accommodate the needs of qualified workers with disabilities and places special anti-discrimination obligation on public agencies.
In last year's case, the majority said there was insufficient evidence that age discrimination by state employers was a problem so serious as to justify breaching the states' constitutional immunity from damage suits in federal court. In this new case, supporters of the Disability Act, historians and disability rights advocates have mounted a major effort to document the extent to which states themselves have discriminated against people with disabilities, from denial of accesss to polling places to involuntary institutionalization and even sterilization.

2 - A second case challenges an exercise of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce, in this instance under the Clean Water Act. The question is the validity of a regulation known as the "migratory bird rule" under which the government has asserted authority to regulate small intrastate wetlands. Recent precedents have emphasized that activity must itself have a substantial impact on commerce. A federal appeals court upheld the regulation on the basis of the cumulative economic effect of the millions of people who travel across state lines to hunt or watch migratory birds.

3 - The federal appeals court last year invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency's new standards for smog and soot under the Clear Air Act. The court said that by failing to give the agency meaningful limits on the setting of standards, Congress had delegated too much legislative authority to the executive branch. Since many administrative agencies operate within broad and vague grants of authority, this unexpected judicial revival of the "nondelegation" doctrine could have major consequences.

4 - There are a number of cases raising substantial issues under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure. For example -- There is a challenge to Charleston, South Carolina's program under which selected obstetrics patients at a municipal hospital were tested for cocaine use and positive findings turned over to the local police. Among the 10 plaintiffs are women who were arrested and taken to jail almost immediately after giving birth. The Fourth Amendment question is whether the urine tests performed without warrants were unconstitutional searches or whether they were justified by a "special need" beyond the bounds of ordinary law enforcement, to protect fetal health. There are other Fourth Amendment cases coming up but this gives us the general idea.

A reminder at this time that the reason we have a checks and balance system is to preclude the possibility of a monarchy. The Constitution of the United States mandates that checks and balances must exist and the possibility of a monarchy must not exist. The judicial branch is the court system. They are there to provide the citizens with justice. They have the power to try and convict criminals, including members of congress. They interpret laws and how they apply to new situations and determine the constitutionality of laws. They have authority over matters of law and equity. They can overturn a law if it is ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution.

Is this power the judicial system wields a "good" power? Are we, as citizens, pleased it is there? Is it, perhaps, too powerful? Are we acutely aware that the next person we place in the White House will have a lot to do with the type of thinking that goes on in the Supreme Court? What are your reactions?

Robby

Robby

And you are so correct, Idris, that Supreme Court Justices have not always kept to the thinking that others thought they would.

I'm so glad you wrote that "book." It is important, I believe, that as we continue to discuss Democracy in America, that we constantly remind ourselves that there is more than one form of democracy.

May I ask you, if you would be so kind, to add one more "chapter" and help us to understand the Canadian equivalent of our Supreme Court?

Robby

Robby

The President, for example, can be impeached for high crimes and treason. However, it is not the judicial system that puts the Preident on trial. The President is put on trial in the United States Senate and not the Supreme Court.

Your comments and research this morning have been most helpful in showing that there are different kinds of democracy and in examining the power of the Supreme Court. As we approach an election in the United States which might have much to do with the composition of our Supreme Court and, therefore, much to do with rulings handed down in the coming 4-8 years, the choice of presidential candidate becomes even more important. We are no longer thinking solely of the Executive Branch. Our three branches of government are "divided" by the principle of Balance of Power but, in a sense, "united."

As we move into the last of days of campaigning, any comments from others here on the relationship of the President to the Supreme Court?

The quotes above by deT change periodically so it is of course possible to be an active participant here without having the book. Having it in your hand, however, will help you to see the America that deT saw and be able to compare it with the America you see now.

Kiwi: If I understand correctly, then I am aghast that in your Highest Court you have "one judge one case." When I think of the Power that this one person wields! An appeal can be made to the Minister of Justice (just one man) and later, if desired, to the Privy Council of the UK (and I don't really know what a Privy Council is). I don't mean to sound unfair but if I am understanding all this correctly, I am so happy I am in a nation where nine Justices fight it out in the privacy of their chambers. I may not like their final rulings but it least it was in the hands of more than one person. That is what our Founders meant by keeping our nation king-proof.

Robby

Robby

1 - The City of Lago Vista asks the Court to decide in a Texas case whether the Fourth Amendment bars a full custodial arrest for an offense -- failure to use a seat belt -- that carries no more than a $50 fine. Do you regularly put on your seat belt and if you don't, are you ready to be arrested and taken to jail in handcuffs or worse?
2 - The question in the Kyllo case is whether use of a thermal imaging device, used to detect the heat that is often the byproduct of a home-growing marijuana operation, is a search that requires a warrant. Whether or not you grow the "weed," do you think there should be Fourth Amendment protection here?
3 - In the Illinois case, the Court will decide whethr the police can secure a home from the outside, preventing the occupant's re-entry while they obtain a warrant to search the premises. Is it OK with you that the police prevent you from entering your own home?

Are you sure that the Supreme Court's decisions will not affect your private life? And if you are not sure, are you prepared to vote for the "proper" presidential candidate?

Robby

The Executive is sovereign over the Judicial by the power of appointment. The Executive is sovereign over the Legislature with the power of Veto. The Legislature is sovereign over the Executive with the power of the purse and its law making powers. The Legislature is sovereign over the Court because it makes the laws and over both Executive and Judicial with the power of impeachment. The Judicial is sovereign over both the Executive and Legislature by declaring a law unconstitutional. Each branch is regulated by the other two branches. No branch can regulate itself.

When you say, Carolyn, that the Justices are "politically" appointed, it shows the power of the Executive branch over the Judicial branch.

Although the Judicial branch oversees other branches of government, no one oversees them. The Judiciary - meaning not only the Supreme Court but the entire judicial system. The judiciary has taken the position that they are self regulating and can police themselves. In deciding to police themselves, the Supreme Court of the United States has bypassed the checks and balance system.

The Judicial branch of government is charged with the duties of maintainng justice. The court system is supposed to work for the people. That is how the Constitution defines the role of the justice system. The Constitution defines things the courts can NOT do as well as things it MUST do.

Listen to Chief Justice Marshall:--

"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it shold not; but it is equally true that it MUST take jurisdiction if it SHOULD. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We CANNOT pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties a case may be attended, we MUST decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we wold gladly avoid, but we CANNOT avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgement, and conscientiously perform our duty."

This is powerful stuff!! Is this what is meant by "justice delayed is justice denied?" Agree? Disagree? Any comments?

Robby

Is it the belief of participants in this forum that the court systems have deteriorated? Why are there so many "lawyer" jokes? Has the court system become a self-serving institution? Are they "above the law?"

Robby

Who is overseeing judges and lawyers to see that are themselves following the law?

If self-governing is synoymous with self-regulation, then that is exactly what scared the Founders. Their system was to create a nation that was king-proof. Are judges in the local circuit courts, in the higher courts of appeal, and even in the Supreme Court becoming "kings?" If so, as we look at the upcoming election, should we wonder about what "kings" the new President will appoint?

But please stay here, too. Don't leave me alone! I get frightened easily.

Robby

"In recent months charges of ethical misconduct rocked the New Hampshire Supreme Court. All this might never have happened, the ethically questionable moments in the court might never have become public and been corrected, if not for Howard J. Zibel. Mr. Zibel (rhymes with quibble) is the court's clerk.

"The disruption began on Feb. 4. At a meeting, Chief Justice Brock announced which judges he had appointed to a panel tht would hear the divorce case of one of the court's own justices, W. Stephen Thayer III. Justice Thayer objectd strenuously to the choice of a particular judge for that panel, and Chief Justice Brock then went to Mr. Zibel's office to ask him to hold off calling the judge to tell him of the apppointment. He was too late, however, Mr. Zibel was already on the phone to the judge.

"When the importance of the incident sank in -- the fact that a recused justice, Justice Thayer, had tried to influence the selection of judges for his own case -- it troubled Mr. Zibel deeply. In his family, he said, he is known as the "ethical nut." He is the kind of father who, when a daughter suggests, say, pretending that she is 12 instead of 13 to save $5 on a movie ticket, will ask: "Is your integrity worth $5? Is that the price of your honesty?"

"He had witnessed what he believed was a breach of judicial ethics and was obligated to report it. What to do? So great was his agonizing that when he described some of it during the state Senate trial, he broke into tears. He had lost his great-grandparents in Europe during the Holocaust, he said, and found himself thinking about a talk he had heard recently about how the court clerks in Vichy, France, had signed the papers for the deportation of Jewish children. Court clerks, he knew must be the guardians of due process, helping to defend the rule of law.

"During a sleepless night, he wrote what came to be known as the Zibel Memorandum, detailing three recent instances in which he believed Justic Thayer had committed breaches of ethics. He described how Justice Thayer had tried to influence the selection of judges for his own divorce case; how he had argued at a court conference on behalf of a lawyer friend whom he owed $50,000; and how he had participated in discussions of new rules for the Judicial Conduct committee even though he had a pending case before the panel.

"Asked today to elaborate on what exactly influenced his decision, Mr. Zibel said: "I don't know that I can pinpoint anything. It's just your whole background. It's just the way you're brought up."

Any comments?

Is everyone here in agreement with deTocqueville (above) that the power vested in the American courts of justice is a barrier against tyranny? And as election time approaches, need we be concerned or not about the type of judges that the next President will appoint?

Robby

The question in the Indianspolis case is the validity of a drug-interdiction checkpoint in which trained drug-detecting dogs sniffed the cars of motorists stopped on a city street. A federal appeals court rejected the city's argument that because the checkpoints serve a "special need" of protecting health and safety, they should not be held to the same constitutional standard as a typical law enforcement program, which would require the police to have a reason to suspect wrongdoing before stopping a car.

Which do you place first -- the Constitution's Fourth Amendment or the city's "need" to protect health and safety?

A federal appeals court rejected a Constitutional challenge to the 1994 federal law that prohibits the manufacture, sale or possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons. The makers of the TEC-DC9 and TEC-22 semiautomatic pistols and the Striker 12 shotgun, challenged the law on the ground that it exceeded Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce.

One judge on the appeals court issued a strong call for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court had ruled in a 1995 case striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act that possession of a gun did not have enough connection with commerce.

Do you believe that the choice of a particular presidential candidate 3 weeks from now will affect the Supreme Court's attitude toward guns in schools?

Robby

America has the United States Courts of Appeal which are divided into 13 separate federal circuits. There are 11 numbered circuits and a D.C. Circuit for the District of Columbia (12 based on geographical areas) and a Federal Circuit which hears specialized cases on patent and trademark law. These courts of appeals review matters from the District Courts of their geographical regions, the U.S. Tax Court, and from certain federal administrative agencies.

Now here comes the power part. Appeals court judges are appointed for life and they are appointed by the President. Each court of appeals consists of six or more judges, depending on the caseload of the courts. There are 167 judges on the 12 regional courts of appeals.

So even if no Supreme Court Justices were to be appointed within the next 4-8 years, there are a heck of a lot of judgeships that the new President will fill. Once the appointments have been made, they are there for life unless there is need for impeachment. In earlier postings we discussed ethics. What kind of judges do we want? How shall we go about getting them?

In this coming term, the Supreme Court will decide whether journalists may be sued under the federal wiretap law for disclosing the contents of communications they have reason to suspect were illegally intercepted. In this case a radio talk show host in Pennsylvania, played a tape of a private cell phone conversation that had been anonymously delivered to him. The two parties to the conversation sued. A federal sppeals court held that as the passive receiver of newsworthy information, journalists could not be punished under the wiretap law, despite the privacy interests at stake.

In 1787, radio and wiretaps were not in any way thought of, yet the concept of privacy existed even then. Does not the First Amendment continue to be as valid in the Year 2000 as in 1787?

1 - Are the police part of an Administration or simply appointed by them?
2 - What is the significance of the phrase "officers of the court" which includes the enforcers?
3 - Is someone with Chief Justice John Marshall's ideal views on today's Supreme Court?
4 - Where was the idea that "innocence is no defense" initiated?

We are discussing Democracy in America. Or the way that Democracy is supposed to operate. What is your reaction to deTocqueville's remark (above) beginning with the words "In America, the Constitution . . .?" What are your answers to Gary's questions?

Robby

Last week the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether current limits on the amount parties can spend in coordination with their Congressional candidates are constitutionally valid. "Limits" apply to the use of "hard" money by political parties in the general election -- contributions that must meet strict federal restrictions concerning the amounts that can be donated. Limits apply both to state party committees and the national parties.

When our Founders discussed "freedom of speech," do you suppose they included the spending of money as a method of "speech?"

And that info you gave us is amazing!! I never heard of that before! Considering those facts, it is again surprising that we speak English and not Spanish.

Robby

The Judicial branch of the American government wields strong powers and we have been discussing here where it has at times seemed to go wrong. This being considered, would you consider a different system? If so, what kind of system? Do you see a nation which has a "better" system?

Tonight is the last of the three debates between the Presidential candidates. Whoever wins the election will have the power to appoint not only Supreme Court Justices but members of the entire federal court system. Do you consider this procedure one which helps to strengthen and promote Democracy?

This split of authority will likely be a factor when the Supreme Court decides whether or not to review the 3rd Circuit's decision. Cases like this in the future will be decided by new judges and Justices who probably will have the same philosophy as the new President who appointed them and whom we will elect three weeks from now.

As you enter the voting booth or drop your ballot into a box those three short weeks from now, will the thought of the Judicial branch be on your mind?

Is this what is happening to us in America? Are we dying?

Back to Robby's question: Are we, as Americans dying? I don't think so! I think the term American has assumed a different image. I think we are changing, but every generation does that. What worked for us may not work for future generations. Here in the U.S., our present elections bring up many problems which are domestic problems: Medicare, Social Security, Long Term Care, Good Air-Bad Air, our defense system, oil shortages, etc., etc. Our founding fathers could never have imagined these problems so they gave us a good foundation or guideline and let us take it from there.

Was Chief Justice John Marshall correct when he said: "The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution." He called such avoidance treason to the Constitution.

Judicial ethics is equally important. When a judge breaks the law, disregards the rules, takes bribes, is drunk on the bench, or commits other acts that undermine and obstruct justice, our government has a responsibility to protect the integrity of the courts. And this can't be done through self-regulation.

Lawyers and judges are in theory required to report misconduct. In reality they are "prohibited" from reporting misconduct. If a lawyer reports a judge, the lawyer gets in trouble. Once a lawyer hs filed a complaint, every other lawyer and judge knows about it and the judges rule against the lawyer in every action the lawyer brings before the court. The lawyers who are left quickly learn that you don't complain against a judge who is comitting misconduct. Thus a judge is not treated like a judge, but like a king who is above the rule of law.

Do situations like this sound familiar to any one here? Or can we rest quietly knowing that the Constitution is protecting us?

"Americans have always sacrificed comfort for the sake of opportunity. Our forefathers left home and hearth to trek across the oceans and the western frontiers. Our Founders fought a revolution to make America a test for a grand proposition, that a nation of equals could govern itself. We're a people consumed both by the hunger for gold and the desire for salvation. That's why we are so energetic, and why our culture is so dynamic and why our nation has become the most powerful nation on this earth."

Do you folks see the American of today having the same traits and behavior that David Brooks just described?

Missouri is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case on the grounds that a state has the right to control its own speech and that adopt-a-highway signs are the speech of a state. Other states have filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on Missouri's behalf. They are Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Say some officials: "If it is allowed in Missouri, they may try it in other states." In March of last year, Anne Arundel County in Maryland dropped its own program rather than allow a Klan group to participate. Adopt-A-Highway volunteers clean 14,000 miles of highways, roughly 26 percent of state-maintained roads.

States now face the prospect of being forced to validate the Klan through the erection of highway signs announcing its presence as a partner of government. The Virginia appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has established that the use of "fighting words" and threats of violence, among a few others, are exceptions to the First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

The klan has won many other cases because of the First Amendment. For instance, in Indiana, they applied for permission to march in Indianapolis and at first, were denied but later were allowed. The parameter set for them to march was that they could not march in front of any government buildings. So, they weren't even seen, as they marched behind the court house.

Robby

Robby

The debates are now over. For two weeks we have, as we floated along in this mainstream, been concentrating on just two faces -- the faces of two men who are vying to be the President of the United States. That is now fading into the past and as we look outward suddenly the scene changes. We find ourselves looking not at just two faces but at the faces of over 205 million people, approximately 98 million of them male and approximately 106 of them female. These are the faces of the Electorate, those Americans who are 18 or over and who will put one of those two men in the White House on January 20, 2001.

The electoral system of America is unique.Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. representatives (which changes each decade according to the size of each State's poulation as determined in the Census.) The political parties in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president. Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.

Sound complicated? Perhaps we might want to talk about that. In any event, while the candidates will continue to campaign, the responsibility for operating this great nation is now moving slowly onto the shoulders of its citizens. Isn't that what the Founders envisioned?

They tend to trust in the traditional sources of moral authority yet are willing to bend the truth and to bully or manipulate people to get their way, according to the psychological team from the University of Texas, Houston, and the University of Minnesota. To determine the personality traits of each American president, the researchers analyzed qustionnaires on individual presidents, which were completed by more than 100 historical experts. The historians rated presidents on their character for the five years before they became presidents. Then they correlated these psychological characteristics with the degree of a president's greatness, determined by referencing generally accepted lists of America's greatest presidents.

1 - Abraham Lincoln
2 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
3 - George Washington
4 - Thomas Jefferson
5 - Theodore Roosevelt
6 - Woodrow Wilson
7 - Harry Truman
8 - Andrew Jackson
9 - Dwight D. Eisenhower
10 - James Madison.

Then under the stimulus of World War II and the entrepreneurial leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there was a vast expansion of the scope and influence of the federal government. The United States became a world power and the presidency underwent fundamental changes that increase the likelihood that the personal attributes distinguishing one White House incumbent from another will shape political outcomes.

The power of modern American presidents manifests itself in its purest form in the global arena, where their actions as Commander-in-Chief can determine the fate of the human race. The President's latitude for independent action is even greater in the unstructured post-cold war world than it was during the cold war, when the threat of mutual destruction concentrated minds and constrained actions.

Do each of us truly realize the awesome action that we take as we enter the polling booth or drop a name into a ballot box??

The struggle to achieve equal rights for women is often thought to have begun, in the English-speaking world, with the publicatiion of Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women" in 1792. The demand for the enfranchisement of American women was first seriously forumulated at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. After the Civil War, agitation by women for the ballot became increasingly vociferous. In 1869, a rift developed among feminists over the proposed 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to black men. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others refused to endorse the amendment because it did not give women the ballot. Other suffragists including Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe, argued that once the black man was enfranchised, women would achieve their goal. Stone created the American Woman Suffrage Association, which aimed to secure the ballot through state legislation. In 1890 Wyoming entered the Union, becoming the first state with general women's suffrage (which it had adoped as a territory in 1869.) On Aug. 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment granted the ballot to American women.

We have concentrated these past couple of weeks on the candidates. Now we are concentrating on the Electorate and the election process. Is there such a thing as the "women's" vote?

They chose from three main systems -- 1- Elect the president by Congress, 2 - Elect the President by the people, or 3 - elect the president by electors. Much debate was made over this topic and eventually the Electoral College system was chosen. WHY?

If Congress were to elect the president, then the president might feel an obligation to help Congress get certain laws passed by not vetoing. This would put a dent in the checks and balances system.

Some people, James Madison for example, believed in the direct vote system. But most delegates did not think that the American democracy had matured enough to offer a direct vote. It was still an unstable government. Most drafters BELIEVED THAT THE PEOPLE WERE GENERALLY MISINFORMED AND EASILY MISLED.

Therefore, the system we have today (Electoral College) is a compromise. We didn't want Congress to do it and we can't rely on the people to be informed enough to do it. Many Americans feel they go to the polls every year and vote for the president, rather than the electors, and that they are in control.

Winston Churchill once said: "The electoral college system is probably the worse possible method of choosing a president - except for all the others."

Do you folks believe that now, 224 years late, the people are properly informed and not easily misled?

Robby

Foremost among the responsibilities of citizenship is the wise use of the power of the ballot. An informed electorate is the surest guarantee of the survival of democracy. Whether the issue is paving a street in the town in which they live or approving a major change in U.S. foreign policy, American voters have the duty to cast their votes on the basis of all the information available.

How many here are not going to vote because they are "all rascals?"

Now I live in a rural area of Virginia and was amazed the first time I voted here that I was marking a paper and slipping it into a box! I felt that I had gone back almost 100 years! Last year, however, they installed a machine similar to a Xerox copier in which I slip the paper into it and it apparently scans my vote and tallies it.

How do you folks vote in your area and how are they tallied? Are they truly "secret?"

Robby

Marking "X"s and other similar methods and having unknown methods of counting makes me wonder just how much opportunity for corruption there is across the nation. I hope the rest of you here (especially lurkers!) will tell us how voting is handled in your area.

Robby

As Camron says, he lives in Fairfax County which is closer to Washington, DC and is much more urban than where I live. As the rest of you share the voting procedures that are followed in your area, help us to know whether your "area" is urban or rural, as well as the State in which you live. And, of course, we are also interested in voting procedures in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and other nations that are democracies.

In these ways the voters maintain their control of the governmental process. Have you ever been in contact with any of your representatives? Just how did you do it?

Do you have any special referendums up for vote in your area?

Robby

Anyone here taking part in these?

Putting it simply, as I understand it, the Framers of the Constitution did not believe that the people (at least in that time) had sufficient accurate information to be able to vote directly so they formed the Electoral College as a buffer between direct vote and having the Congress elect the President. This they did not want because in doing so, the legislative branch would have power over the executive branch.

Most all states no longer show the electors' names on the ballot. The voter votes for either the president or the party that they wish to hold office. This causes a problem of the unfaithful elector. Electors are expected to ratify the people's choice by voting for candidates winning the popular election. Electors that do not vote for what they are expected to vote for are considered faithless or unfaithful electors. This has not traditionally been a problem but it could possibly be a problem. 26 states do not require an elector to vote for what they have pledged to vote for by state law.

Every ten years the census figures adjusts how many representativew each state has. This number plus two, representing the two senators, equals how many electors each state has. Also DC has 3 electors.

I don't pretend to be knowledgeable in this area but perhaps this helps a bit and others in this forum may have more to add or a correction of my comments.

The legal authority of a state to revoke an inmate's voting rights is based upon the Fourteenth Amendment. It allows for the denying of the voting rights of individuals guilty of "participating in rebellion or other crime." The federal government may not infringe upon a state's authority to grant or rescind voting rights to prison inmates and former felons.

Robby

Any other participants here with info on how ballots are counted in their areas?

This is not a political forum and is not the place for discussing specific people (presidential and congressional candidates) who are up for election but this is certainly the forum for comparing what we are seeing across the land with what deTocqueville saw 170 years ago.

Robby

It is, in fact, not an American holiday at all.It is a practice originated, as far as can be told, from the ancient Celtic peoples. Very little difference exists between Hallowe'en festivities now and Hallowe'en festivities 2000 years ago. The reason ancient Hallowe'en rites have not changed lies in the unique position of this ritual, in terms of the occult.

How do you, your family, and your friends celebrate this holiday? Are preparations already underway? Are the pupils in school doing their cut-outs? Are the adults in your circle preparing for some sort of party? Are you stocking up with treats for any goblins who might be knocking at your door? Or perhaps, is the occult taking over in some hidden ceremony in your area?

Please share with us the meaning of Hallowe'en (if any) to you and your family.

Robby

Well, you see Songbird, great minds (yours and mine of course!) are observing America with a sharp eye and Hallowe'en just had to come up. An adult couple costumed as a WASHER AND DRYER!! I would have loved to have seen that! I doubt if they did that again -- probably all "washed up" - (couldn't resist that). Are the rest of you seeing Hallowe'en as already beginning or do they wait until October 31st in your community?

RIB:--Good to have you joining us in this forum. As you can see, we discuss whatever America is showing us at the time and comparing that with deTocqueville's book. Concering your remark about the "scientific method" being perhaps the most important "discovery" ever, Alexis deTocqueville had much to say about Science after he had visited America in 1831 and at a later date we will discuss this in detail. Please come back and participate with us often.

Robby

Robby

Any parades in your area of America?

Robby

People believed that spirits and ghosts left the grave on Hallowe'en and would seek out warmth in their previous homes. Villagers, fearful of the possibility of being visited by the ghosts of past occupants, would dress up in costumes to scare the spirits on their way. They would also leave food and other treats at their door to appease the spirits, so they would not destroy their homes or crops, but instead move on down the road. They also began to hollow out turnips with a face either painted or carved into it, and place lighted candles inside, hoping the image of a damned soul would scare the spirits away.

The Irish Potato Famine (1845-50) prompted over 700,000 to immigrate to the Americas. These immigrants brought with them their traditions of Hallowe'en and Jack o'Lanterns, but turnips were not as readily available as back home. They found the American pumpkin to be a more than adequate replacement. Today, the carved pumpkin is perhaps the most famous icon of the holiday.

A question currently before the Court is whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority 10 years ago when it made states liable for damages for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act. The disabilities act is arguably the most important civil rights law enacted in the last 25 years. The Court has to decide whether the law is a valid exercise of Congress's authority to enforce the 14th Amendment's equal protction guarantee. When, if ever, should the Court defer to Congress's own view of its power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to "enforce by appropriate legislation" the amendment's provisions, even if enforcement means something more than the Court itself would decree?

Some say that deference to Congress means that Congress gets to decide what the Constitution means.

Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 said: "It is emphatcally the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Can Congress ever enact into law a view of constitutional rights that is broader than the Supreme Court's own interpretation?

As we look at the polls which indicate that a significant percentage of the Electorate will not even vote much less run for public office, does deTocqueville's concern ring true in this 21st Century?

Robby

Robby

The Supreme Court case began with separate lawsuits against Alabama by two employees who accused the state agencies of discriminating against them because of their medical problems, breast cancer in the case of one and respiratory impairments in the case of the other. Alabama asserted that it was immune from suit under the 11th Amendment, which ordinarily bars damage suits against states unless there has been a valid abrogation of the state's constitutional immunity.

Robby

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States . . ."

How would you (and others here) change that. Would you have the members of the Supreme Court elected? And, if so, by whom? And for what length of time? And what about the other members of the federal system who are also appointed by the President and also for life?

American self-government is founded on a set of basic principles. The judicial system is premised on

1 - A belief in the equality of all individuals
2 - The inviolability of human rights
3 - The supremacy of the law.

No individual or group, regardless of wealth, power or position, may defy these principles. No person, for any reason, may be denied the protection of the law.

The nation's physical size and its large population made literal self-government an impossibility. In its place, the Founding Fathers elaborated the principle of representative government. They were strongly influenced by the advantages of separation of powers and of checks and balances. These theories had been in practice in the governments of the American colonies and they underlie the fundamental laws of the United States. The federal system adds to the checking because power is divided constitutionally between the central government and the states. It is helpful to remind ourselves occasionally that we are THESE United States. We are a Federation.

The judicial branch, in determining cases, may declare legislation unconstitutional, but the judiciary itself is subject to executive and legislative checking through the appointment of judges and the passage of legislation governing organization, procedure, and jurisdiction of the courts. There is also a possibility of amendment of the Constitution to reverse judicial determinations.

If anyone here were to change the system of the Supreme Court Justices being appointed by the President, what would you put in its place?

Robby

Robby

The current proposals would permit voters in each judicial district to decide whether to use that system for trial judges or continue to select them at the ballot tox. The system of electing judges can draw deep support among some people who believe they can influence the courts with political contributions. Others say that the so-called reform is a move to deprive citizens of their vote and to close the doors to candidates who are not part of the system.

So we have in our democracy, a system where judges can be appointed and feel obligated to those who appoint them or a system where they can be elected and feel obligated to those who have given large amounts of money to their election.

Which system do you prefer?

Robby

Robby

That left the 14th Amendment but in other decisions the Court has ruled that Congress's legislative powers are more limited than Congress thought they were. We are seeing Democracy in action -- one branch of the government checking another. Said Justice Kennedy: "When Congress alters the federal balance, it must carefully consider the consequences of doing so." In the meantime, the disabled patiently wait.

So simply said by Congress (the legislative branch of the government) but it is obvious that it is so simple that it requires interpretation (and this is where the judicial branch comes in). What is the definition of disability? Does that mean mental as well as physical disability? Does it affect only public employment or also private employment? What about other phases of life which do not come under employment? If a state interprets it one way, can the federal government overturn that interpretation? And on and on. It's like saying to someone: "Be nice." What does that mean?

It's so easy for the legislative branch of a government to say: "Do this." I do have sympathy for the judicial branch and that is why I consider the upcoming election so important because the candidate we choose will have everything in the world to do with the Justices appointed in the coming 4-8 years.

Robby

Electoral College? Yes, there is something which most citizens know little about and yet is so important in an election.

Then there is Hallowe'en!!

Robby

But let us pause a bit. Is that not democracy in action? Is there anything wrong with "the squeaky wheel getting the grease?" If one group shouts louder than the other, are they not expressing their "freedom of speech" and perhaps deserving of receiving attention? deTocqueville speaks often in his book of the "tyranny of the majority." Is a vocal minority not deserving of receiving what it wants even if that is not best for "all of the people?"

Just what are we talking about anyway when we use the term "democracy?"

Disabled citizens, nevertheless, often face barriers that impede their ability to exercise this fundamental right. Until recently, for example, New York State citizens, involuntarily committed by court order to psychiatric facilities, automatically lost their right to vote. This excluson was successfully challenged both judicially and legislatively by the Commission on Quality of Care's Protection and Advocacy System.

A section of the New York Election Law had singled out individuals involuntarily committed by court order. Such persons were disenfranchised regardless of their capacity to make rational voting deciions. On the other hand, persons who committed themselves voluntarily or who were involuntarily committed by means other than court order retained the right to vote.

What are your reactions?

It may sound as if we are talking about issues regarding the disabled but the Court is seeing it as an issue of states' rights vs the federal government. It is their job, is it not, to examine the constitutionality of a law? Isn't this what they are doing? And is anyone here seeing the election of a particular presidential candidate in just a few days as having an effect on the attitude of the Supreme Court in the coming 4-8 years?

The Federal Reserve is comprised of seven governors, including the chairman, and the 12 presidents of the regional Federal Reserve banks. The governors are appointed by the president to 14-year terms, subject to Senate confirmation. The next president will be able to appoint or re-appoint three governors immediately. There are two empty seats and the board term of the vice chairman expired in January but approval of his re-nomination has been held up and he can remain in his job untl he or someone else is confirmed by the Senate. The current chairman has a term which expires less than four years from now although his board seat runs for another six years.

So once again, we see the power of the President of the United States. And to think that there are some "citizens" who will enter the voting booth taking mainly into consideration the smile of a specific candidate or the tone of his voice.

How perilous can be the life of a democracy!!

Robby

Robby

I also remember, as a child, dunking for apples and taking part in other games. I remember adults having those games, too, but somehow as the years passed, Hallowe'en became less of a child's celebration (at least here in America) and was taken over by adults. All this was, of course, recorded and broadcast on television. What is always amazing to me is not that the rest of the world sees through TV what we do but copies us. I can understand some of the French "authorities" complaining about the introduction of Hallowe'en into their culture but why is the French populace doing it in the first place?

Robby

Robby

Robby

There are some who believe that the 14th Amendment demonstrates that the states have the Constitutional suthority to disenfranchise both currently incarcerated and former felons for as long as they deem fit. In limiting the freedoms of convicted felons, incarceration is designed to punish inmates and impress upon them the magnitude of their crimes. As a privilege to be enjoyed by law-abiding citizens, prohibiting inmates from voting futher drives this point home. Prohibiting former felons from voting for life ensures the integrity of the electoral process, especially in states and jurisdictions where the populace directly elects judges, law enforcement officers and district attorneys.

On the other hand, others say that assertions that the 14th amendment justifies the disnfranchisement of felons by states are dubious at best, especially when deciding what "other crimes" constitute the serious magnitude of "participation in rebellion." Disenfranchising inmates is counter to the American tradition of laboring for the expansion of voting rights for all citizens. In many states, the prohibiting of former convicts from voting has become a form of government-sanctioned discrimination against felons who have completed their restitution to society. This is especially true for African-American males who constitute a disproportonate percentage of disenfranchised former felons.

Robby

What do the rest of you think. Should those American citizens who are in prison and those who Gary described be allowed to vote?

Robby

Robby

I continue to wonder if the rest of our participants here believe that a citizen's right to vote should be removed if he is convicted of a crime.

Robby

Robby

1 - The following states permanently prohibit voting rights for felons -- Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Wyoming.
2 - According to Human Rights Watch and The Sentencing Project, 1.4 million African-American men, or 13% of black men, are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average.
3 - At the conclusion of 1998, an estimated 5.9 million people were incarcerated or serving parole throughout the entire U.S. criminal justice system.
4 - Arizona and Maryland permanently disenfranchise felons after the conviction of a second offense.

Robby

Robby

Which American citizens (over a half million of them), born in the United States, of voting age, pay taxes, with no criminal record, and having no history of mental illness, have no voting voice in the U.S. Congress?

Try again.

Robby

Will be back fresh tomorrow morning and looking for the correct answer to the question in Post #385.

Robby

from the Discussion Leader.)

Let's examine this so that we understand what the Founders did. The District of Columbia was part of the original colonies. Its citizens did vote in Congress before the capital was moved to the present D.C. Its citizens are inheritors of the Constitutional claim for voting rights, equal treatment under the law, and other principles.

The Constitution gives the U.S. Congress power over the District of Columbia, per Article I, Section 8, clause 17 to "exercise exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such capital district...as may...become the seat of Government of the United States" as well as enclaves it might acquire. Each American citizen is represented in Congress by one person in the House of Representatives and two Senators except citizens of the nation's capital (and those living in territories, where other factors operate.)

So we have well over a half-million people (greater in population than Alaska, Wyoming, or Vermont) who pay federal taxes and can be called to war but, while they may vote for President, can not vote for representation in Congress. According to the "Federalist Papers," the lack of attention in the Constitution to D.C.'s situation reflects an oversight.

What say ye, people? Should they be given the vote?

In the early days, when the capital was moved in 1800 from Philadelphia to the New District of Columbia, population was far below the 30,000 specified in relation to establishment of Congressional districts. From 1790 to 1800 people living in the territory of the District continued to vote in national elections in Maryland or Virginia. Further, at the outset the right to vote was highly limited. It has been enlarged such that the principle "one person, one vote" is now central to our system of laws.

Any suggestions here as to what action this democracy might take in rectifying this oversight?

To piggyback onto Gary's comments about the District of Columbia -- The city of Washington as designed by L'Enfant did not fill the 100 square-mile authorized by the Constitution. The areas also included the cities of Georgetown and Alexandria, which were already in existence. Congress designated the rest of the 10-mile by 10-mile portion outside the corporate limits of these three cities as the County of Alexandria, in the section given by Virginia, and the County of Washington, in the Maryland-ceded portion.

In 1846 Congress voted to give back to Virginia all the land that state had given to the government in 1790 for creation of the District of Columbia. This move returned about 32 square miles of territory to Virginia. Residents of Alexandria and what is now Arlington County, Virginia, thus lost District of Columbia residency and again became Virginia citizens.

Then Congress changed its mind again and decided that Georgetown and the County of Washington shold be separate entities. In 1895, Congress legally ended Georgetown's status as a separate city by merging it with the city of Washington, yet this act said nothing about the County of Washington. Technically, this Maryland-ceded portion of the District of Columbia is still a part of that namesake even though it operates as a separate identity. This slip-up has never been corrected.

Washington, D.C. is a city in name only -- a mapmakers'd designation and the established pseudonym for the District of Columbia.

The citizens of the District of Columbia pay federal taxes, including income taxes. The federal government does not generally finance the Distict. In fact, the district's budget is now financed by locally raised revenues.

Does the term "taxation without representation" ring a bell?

Robby

Should the right to vote be restricted (mentally ill? convicted felons? residents of District of Columbia? citizens under age 18?) or should it be expanded?

What is your reaction to deTocqueville's comment (above) which begins "The further electoral rights are extended . . .?"

Robby

Any initiatives or referendums to be voted upon in your ballot box this November 7th?

Robby

Do you believe that the American Democracy has matured to the point where the people of the U.S. are ready to elect their officials?

Under the general ticket system it is possible for a good strategist to ignore 78% of the nation's actual votes, meaning the outcome of an election theoretically could represent only 12% of the nation. Since the people of a state vote for a President, and not an elector, should it not be required for the elector to vote for whom they are pledged to represent? If the electoral college were to deadlock, and no President had a majority, then the election would pass to the House of Representatives. This would, in effect, outlaw all logic of the electoral college, giving one vote per state.

Are you happy with the way the electoral system is set up? What is your reaction to deTocqueville's comment (above) beginning: "The people reign . . .?"

I am confused by the DeToqueville statement above about extending power to the people. Does he mean that the more power we extend to the people, the more they demand?

I interpret deT's comment above to mean that the more we grant voting rights to the citizens (ex: lowering voting age from 21 to 18), the stronger the democracy gets, because the nation is then being run by the "people." At least, that is how I understand his remark.

Idris:--You speak about "mud slinging" and "fear-mongering" in Canada as well. Do you suppose that is one of the "evils which Democracy brings" as stated above by deTocqueville?

Robby

Have people changed that much in just 200 years of evolution? Isn't that, in effect, what the Founders were saying as they sat in that room filled with intelligence and education beyond belief and created a new nation which they were afraid they would lose if they turned it over completely to the people?

Robby

In just a few minutes I will be leaving for Williamsburg, Virginia, where I will be attending a three-day conference of the Virginia Psychological Association. I will be back Saturday. I have no doubt that the free flow of interesting and simulating comments will continue. They may relate to some of deTocqueville's remarks above in which he emphasizes that, in the final analysis, the "people" run the show. You may find yourself either being optimistic or pessimistic about the continuance of Democracy as we know it. The topics of the Electoral College or the power of the incoming Presidency over the makeup of the Supreme Court or the differences between a Republic and direct Democracy may pique your interest.

Whatever your comments, I will be reading them with interest upon my return Saturday. Thank you for making this forum one of the most active in Senior Net.

If I put http etc. in front of that address, would that make it clickable? Or is it clickable anyway? I'll know in a moment!

I should have mentioned that the Schmich column appeared today, Nov. 3. I don't know if it will be accessible to folks who tune in to this site tomorrow or the next day or next week.

In the end, what we seem to have here in the good ole US of A, is GREED!! For all the good things in life plus all the goods that go with the good life plus the money that goes with it plus the best health care plus the best jobs, the best schools,etc,etc!!. Hey, that's what we are about, isn't it? Improving the country and the world for everyone? But then, GREED, raises its ugly head and we are off in a different direction. Protecting what we have instead of sharing it. Seems as though its the human condition.

I'll ponder the greed matter.

I do think something is awry when the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies make, on average, something like 200 or more times the average American's income. Many of these guys (and they are overwhelmingly guys) have golden parachutes and whatnot that guarantee that they are risking nothing but their supposedly-good names.

That the gulf between rich and poor is widening (and therefore the gulf in political influence is widening, in our money-dominated campaigns) was amply documented in certain books of 8-12 years ago, and I think the gulf has widened since then.

The books include "Who Will Tell the People", by William Greider; "America: What Went Wrong?", by Donald l. Barlett and James B. Steele; and "The Politics of Rich and Poor", by Kevin Phillips (with favorable blurbs from Richard M. Nixon and Mario M. Cuomo).

With your permission, I will snuggle down under the blanket and greet you on the morrow all fresh and bright-eyed.

The action of the politicians is evidently really pushing the buttons of many of you -- Losalbern believing that the voting populace is no longer represented by the two-party system and wondering how we can "clean this up," Gary seeing within politics a cancer which will "forever overshadow us," but Idris looking at us objectively from another nation and having more confidence that "America will find a way to fix the problem." Is greed part of the problem? Ann is bothered by that aspect as is Songbird who reminds us of the huge salaries of CEOs but Camron does not see it as "applicable."

The fact remains, however, that in less than 48 hours we Americans will individually take an action which we fervently hope will make some sort constructive change in our nation. Do we know what we are voting about? Although Denizen is concerned about the "information glut," Phyll sees herself as being much better informed these days about the issues, giving much thanks to Senior Net. Rambler calls our attention to the Chicago Tribune which says that this is a "big race about relatively small things" such as Social Security and Medicare -- meaning those items which are very close to each of us, especially those of us in the older age bracket.

So here it is -- the moment of truth. I get the feeling that some of you (if not all of you) see the Year 2004 as the election year which will truly turn America around -- that we are only now beginning to get roused up and that "we the people" will unite in four years to prove what deTocqueville calls (see quote above) the "principle of the sovereignty of the people."

"Our founders knew that human beings build their characters through acts of citizenship. If we lose those public virtues, then America will no longer be a great superpower. There will be something wrong if Americans no longer undertake the big causes -- the ones that don't immediately lead to bigger paychecks or higher profits -- like being the beacon of democracy, the global enemy of tyranny, the explorer of space and scientific frontiers."

Apparently the continued strength of our Democracy depends, not only on who we place in Washington, DC, and in our local legislatures, but upon our own actions day by day and minute by minute. Are we up to it?

From 1953 to 1977 the people in charge of US foreign policy were all on the Rockefeller family payroll. Dean Rusk and Henry Kissinger, who ran our foreign policy from 1961 to 1977 were dependent upon Rockefeller payments for their very solvency. (page 220).

Covert actions are always undertaken by the executive branch which typically lies to the legislative branch about what it has done and plans to do, thus preventing Congress from playing its consititutionally intended role.

...textbook authors have claimed that the United States is more generous than any other nation in the world in providing foreign aid. The myth was untrue then; it is likewise untrue now. (page 217)

For decades our government lied to the families of the lost men [of flights over Russia in 1950] and never made representation to the USSR to get thm back, because the flights were illegal and were supposed to be secret.

<

The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.

Robby

Of course my patients fall apart when I go away. I am absolutely indispensable. In fact, the hospital shuts down until I get back.

Robby

I couldn't disagree more. As Carl Pope of the Sierra Club has pointed out, we are in effect electing all three branches of government. Even if he only serves four years, the next President is likely to appoint a couple of Supreme Court justices. That Court is precariously balanced on a host of big "things": abortion, the environment, states rights vs. federal, Bill of Rights issues like privacy (though that word does not appear in the Bill). I think the makeup of the Court will have a profound effect on the lives of our children and grandchildren and on Democracy In America.

Do you agree? Do many Canadians vote on the basis of "likeable"?

Gary or some others can probably explain it better than I but I'll tell you how I see it in my layman language. It is my firm belief that as we move forward decade by decade and century by century that we humans will gradually move out into space. To do so, it is most important that we become "one world" (shades of Wendell Wilkie.) It would be imperative that we have a one world government and this is where the U.N. comes in.

In my opinion, many of the politicians in the United States are caught up in our own power and do not give up any of our sovereignty even if that would help the world in general, eg the environment. There are other examples, eg we have just sent up a capsule with two Russians and one American and NASA absolutely refused, as I understand it, that we be part of it unless the Commander was American.

So, as I see it, the United States is not going to give money to an organization that might take some power away from us.

Someone else here can give you a better answer than I did.

Robby

1- Openness to experience
2 - Attentive to their emotions
3 - Willing to question traditional values and try new ways of doing things
4 - Imaginative and more interested in art and beauty
5 - Stubborn
6 - Ready to fight if picked on.

Robby

Robby

Considering the following, why would one want to become the next President of the United States?

1 - Possible war in the Mid-East.
2 - India-Pakistan nuclear standoffs.
3 - Increase in global warming.
4 - Stock market's fall to Earth.
5 - Eight of the country's 55 auto plants have huge inventories and are taking a weeklong holiday.
6 - Possible rise in unemployment.
7 - Pentagon admits medium-skilled hackers could damage the country's infrastructure.
8 - Continued Yugoslavian crisis.
9 - Mexican and Asian economic crises.

Robby

Robby

"Americans may be the ones casting the actual votes tomorrow, but the world will be watching. The most obvious impact will be in foreign policy. A new presidency means new American diplomacy, whether unilateral or through NATO and the United Nations."

Robby

Robby

Robby, I agree with Idris on why anyone would want to be president of the USA. Its all about "POWER"!!!

How do you explain this love-hate relationship with America?

Robby

"America has a precious role as the new lead nation. That is a national consciousness we are losing. It's hard to know how to respond to this cultural drift but one figure we can look to is Teddy Roosevelt, who saw the America of his day drifting toward enervation. Then, as now, America was in the midst of a gilded age, when great fortunes were being made. TR was concerned that money-craving was subsuming America. Then, as now, a great generation of heroes was dying off. Then it was the Civil War generation; now it is the World War II generation.

"The first thing we need to do, TR insisted, is to restore integrity to public office. A century ago, that meant dismantling the patronage system. In our day it means shaming the politicians who resort to daily polling, spinning, and political combat. The second way to reinvigorate America, TR recognized, was to conduct an active foreign policy. In his famous 1899 address, 'The Strenuous Life,' he argued that just as a great individual should choose a life of effort and ambition, so should a great nation. 'We cannot sit huddled within our borders and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond,' TR declared."

What is your reaction to the comments of David Brooks and his comments about Teddy Roosevelt?

I am so impressed at the level of interest and motivation being shown in this forum. If only the majority of citizens were equal to the caliber of members of the Senior Net. Ah-h-h, dreams!!

Robby

There is a possibility that there will be an electoral vote tie. One year after President Kennedy's election, the 23rd Amendment was ratified, granting the District of Columbia three electoral college votes and establishing an even number of electoral college votes -- 538 instead of 535. When the electoral college meets to case its ballots for President on December 18th, it is by no means inconceivable that the vote of the electoral college could be split down the middle, 269 to 269. There are at least 78 different combinations of state electoral votes that could result in a tie vote.

The electoral college deadlock would, under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, turn the election over to the newly elected 107th U.S. House of Representatives. The Constitution specifies that the House must discharge this solemn responsibility immediately following the count, on January 6th, of the deadlocked Electoral College vote. Each state has one vote in choosing the President. This means that the Members of Congress from each state would have to ballot amongst themselves to submit one vote for the ballot box. Presumably, the majority vote within each state would prevail. Divided states simply submit ballots marked "Divided" to the ballot box.

A quorum of 2/3 of the states is required for the vote. but to win, a Presidential candidate must win the vote of a majority of states -- in other words, 26. While the votes of the District of Columbia count in a Presidential election, they do not count in Congress, so the District of Columbia would presumably not participate in the ballot count.

History suggests that if no candidate can gain 26 votes on the first ballot, it will be no easy task to reach a result. It took 36 balloting exercises in the House over the course of six days for Jefferson to finally emerge victorious over Aaron Burr. Given this history, and accounting for the much greater size of the 107th Congress, how long might it take the 2001 Congress to go through the complicated process of persuading various states to change their votes? If the House does not choose a President by January 20, 2001, the Vice President-elect will become President. He will have already been chosen by majority vote in the Senate.

So imagine this unfolding scenario: the House is dead-locked, the District of Columbia sues the United States in order to win its right to vote during the process, and January 20th rolls around. The result? One of the Vice-Presidents-elect is now President, ready to pick his Vice-President. Would this Vice-President/President now resign so that the original President-elect could become President?

A scenario difficult to imagine, but strangely possible!!

At the moment(5am), I am listening to a man who is "walking the votes out" of his remote mountain area, Havasu,AZ at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Usually, the vote was flown out or they used a donkey pack, but this man is hiking in the dark to get the votes into Flagstaff, AZ. They have 50 votes. That's the Grand Canyon trail that seems to go straight up or down, whichever end you are viewing. I believe it is a mile long! This is our sovereign right!! And we do appreciate it!

Idris, I went to that URL but couldn't find any mention of exchanging votes. I find that so hard to believe but I can see how it would be accomplished. A little larceny in my mind or heart!! Doesn't mean that I would even consider doing it. Of course, there is no way for you to know if the vote you exchanged for another state is cast the way that you want. Its bad enough when families cancel each other out but that's our right.

At the moment, on NPR, the discussion is about "internet voting" where you could vote in peace and warmth of your home. What amazes me is that no where has anyone mentioned that not everyone has a computer at his fingertips. Of couse, there are always the ones at the local library.

Another interesting way of voting has been approved in the NW, I have heard, in Oregon, Idaho or Washington(this info according to a neighbor). They can vote by mail. This gets curiouser and curiouser! Are there special dates on which you mail your choices? How is it that we hear who these states have voted into the electoral college before they could possibly have counted their mail-ins? If I understand Robby correctly, these are the last votes counted.

Idris, I understand your frustration but do remember that as Americans, we have our own frustrations. I believe it was Denizen who pointed out that for many years, the US has been sold out to many different countries. In California, anything was up for grabs about 10 years ago. The Japanese owned most of the golf courses, resorts, movie studios and many buildings. They could buy more for their money in the US. I believe that same is true of Hawaii. In NYC, many of the high rent buildings were sold to foreign countries. Now, the problem is that since that time, our economy has changed, interest rates have fallen, many buildings stand half empty and the owners aren't making enough money to justify their purchases. Wasn't it in BC, I believe, the Chinese also purchased much property, as they were fleeing from Hong Kong? There is a great deal going on that we just don't know enough about. Many times when a property was sold in the town where I lived in California, it was paid for in cash. Mostly Asian money. Since our West coast is part of the Pacific Rim economy, this kind of things goes on there all the time. When Denizen asks about the Canadian trees being eventually sent to Japan, we begin to wonder. Also, our Alaskan oil, which all goes to Japan? When you see the large ships in the Los Angeles harbour carrying milled wood, the story is: The Japanese own much forest land in Alaska and Oregon where they log the wood onto huge ships which have their own mills. After the wood is milled, much of is sold back to us. Our own trees and our own wood?

Sorry to be so long winded today! Must go vote!

When days like Election Day come along I can't help but think of those wonderful people 200-300 years ago and the gift they handed me. I hadn't done a thing to earn it. All I had to do was be born. And if the man chosen to be President (either tomorrow or December 18th depending on the closeness of the vote) does not happen to be the man I wanted, he will nevertheless be my President. He was put in the White House with the votes of my fellow citizens, not with the sound of gunfire.

When the wonderful Senior Net team in charge of Headings helped me to create the Heading above, I asked that there be an American Flag -- not just a flag but a waving flag. One symbolizing the vitality of this nation. Whenever you come onto this forum to post something, I ask that you occasionally pause and wait for the Flag to come on. Pause and watch it wave.

God, I love this country!!

"There a vast, clamorous flood of nearly two million Vietnamese leaving Vietnam over the past 25 years, more than half of whom have settled in the United States. 26,000 Vietnamese a year now emigrate to the U.S., helping to shape both countries and forming one of the half-dozen largest flows of immigrants into America from any country in the world. In numbers of people resettling in America, Vietnam now ranks behind only the giants Mexico, China and India, as well as two traditional sources of immigrants, the Philippines and the Dominican Republic.

"Over the years, the U.S. accepted close to one million people from Vietnam, beginning with the first rush of 130,000 who fled by helicopter, boat and airplane when Saigon fell in April 1975. Then came the flood of "boat people," 400,000 finding asylum in the U.S. The United States took another 20,000 "land people" who fled on foot through neighboring Cambodia. In 1979 an Orderly Departure Program was created and some 400,000 people arrived in the U.S. in that program.

"About 10 years ago, the U.S. inaugurated special programs to accept the Amerasian children of servicemen and the surivivors of re-education canmps. Vietnam also has become one of the leading sources for adoption by Americans, with 717 children going to the U.S. in the last year.

"Why are they all coming here?

1 - Said one authority: 'We are simply acknowledging our continued commitment to the people who at one time sided with us.'
2 - Said 74-year old Nguyen Xuan Hien: 'I would go if I had the money. I'm sending my granddaughter. She'll have a better life there.'
3 - 25-year old Vu Nguyen, an Amerasian knows nothing about his father but still holds a hope of finding him. He is taking with him his 4-year-old son, the grandson of an American soldier he may never know.
4 - Le Thi Thu Ngan, 33, is heading to join her new husband, a Vietnamese-American who returned to Vietnam recently to find a Vietnamese bride. She is a mathematics teacher but speaks no English.
5 - Le Thi Minh Trang, 28, is going to join her father, a former inmate at a re-educationb camp, taking her small sons along. 'I don't know if I'll like it there, but I'm going for the future of my children.'"

And so, folks, this is how America was formed in the first place and this is what is continuing to form it now.

To my knowledge, there are no streams of immigrants to nations in the world which are not democracies. There is a message here somewhere.

Robby

If a potential voter is so disengaged, so out of it, that he/she lacks the gumption to go to the polls, or the discernment to choose between Bush and Gore by Nov. 7, I would want that person (in the service of Democracy In America), to stay home, lock the doors, and watch his/her favorite sitcom reruns. Leave the decision to those of us who care!

He's just too conservative for me, but will win by 2-1, maybe more.

Tomorrow we will all be a bit cooler and be able to come back here and look at the recent exercise in Democracy in the same way that deTocqueville would have. Don't forget us!! We'll be waiting for you!!

How would you feel if the US was bombed and exsisted no more? Please think about this as It could happen.

In the 60's My Mother lost her job at the Studebaker company because it moved to Canada. She did not blame Canada. She blamed the Studebaker Corp. and rightly so.

Ginger

So back to the election I will go.

Hi kiwi lady, ( Carolyn) and all.

If ever there was Democracy in action, it took place yesterday.

Robby

The American system of self-government has been reasonably successful. It has guided and nurtured the nation from weak and chaotic beginnings, through phenomenal expansion in terrotory and population, through drought, war and scandal. It weathered a bitter civil war that threatened to destroy the unity of the nation. It has on many occasions defended the principles of freedom and self-determination from attack by hostile forces from within and without.

The government in America still represents the people, and is dedicated to the preservation of liberty. So long as the preamble to the Constitution is heeded, the republic will stand. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

European Commission President Romano Prodi was among the first to compliment George W. Bush and among the first to repent his haste.
Forty minutes after German President Johannes Rau circulated his letter congratulating Bush in the name of the German people, his office faxed an excited followup: "Please don't publicize the president's congratulations to Bush." Too late!
The Dutch government put out a congratulatory statement -- then retracted it.
New Zealand's prime minister, Helen Clark, was all set to get down to brass tacks with the presumptive winner, mentioning the new round of world trade talks in her congratulatory note to Bush.
In Seoul, the English-language Korea Times ran a banner headline; "Bush Elected U.S. President."
"The U.S. Decides: Bush!" said Mexico's respected daily Reforma.
In Johannesburg, The Star newspaper sent out 20,000 copies of its afternoon edition with the banner headline: "Bush is President." Then it dispatched an extra 30,000 copies with a new headline: "Bush Win in Doubbt."
Sweden's Expressen newspaper called it a thriller.
A Swiss TV anchor likened the vote to a Hitchcock movie.
"The script for the American elections seems to have been written by a master of suspense," said Lisbon's A Capital newspaper.
"To tell you the truth, we didn't know what to believe," a weary foreign news editor of Turkey's private NTV news channel, said after an inconclusive all-night election special.
In Italy, home to 58 governments in the postwar period, many were amazed that the more scientific American approach had failed to produce a reliable result.
Swedish Prime Minister called the outcome "strange" and predicted it would lead to a constitutional debate.
Former Russian Foreign Minister told Ekho Moskvy radio that whatever the outcome, "one might expect an amendment to the U.S. constitution aimed at improving the election process."
Cuban President Fidel Castro made a trip to the beach to symbolically mark the elections, insisting that the balloting was meaningless because of what he called low voter turnout.
Said one Hong Kong government worker: "It's unreasonable in such a big and advanced country. It sets a bad example."

"In 1787 as the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed direct election of the President. But James Madison of Virginia worried that such a system would hurt the South which would have been outnumbered by the North in a direct election system. The creation of the Electoral College got around that. It was part of the deal that southern states, in computing their share of electoral votes, could count slaves (albeit with a two-fifths discount), who of course were given none of the privileges of citizenship. Virginia emerged as the big winner, with more than a quarter of the electors needed to elect a president. A free state like Pennsylvania got fewer electoral votes even though it had approximately the sme free population."

Your thoughts?

"The Constitution's pro-Southern bias quickly became obvious. For 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginia occupied the presidency. Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800 against John Adams from Massachusetts in a race where the slavery skew of the Electoral College was the decisive margin of victory.

"The system's gender bias was also obvious. In a direct presidential election, any state that chose to enfranchise its women would have automatically doubled its clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no special incentive to expand suffrage =-- each got a fixed number of electoral votes, regardless of how many citizens were allowed to vote."

Robby

I saw that West Wing program last night. As I have indicated earlier, I almost never watch TV but I set aside 9 pm (EST) every Wednesday to watch what I consider one of the finest programs that have appeared on the screen in years. It is obvious that they have a staff of consultants which keep the action very very close to what must actually take place within the White House. And they also have settings which must be very close to what the working offices within the White House look like. I hope that many of our young people are watching that program -- it is a most riveting civics lesson.

There are many kinds of democracies scattered around the world. We are not the only democracy. Our kind of democracy is a Republic.

Speaking of "light bulb," didn't you like the dramatic way in which the program closed in which President Bartlett left his office for the day to play chess with someone and one of the staff slowly walked around putting out the lamps in his office, one by one by one, until the room was dark. Very symbolic!!

Robby

I am so pleased you have a headache. I am not letting you forget that you are the one who urged me to start this Discussion Group in the first place!! But, of course, I'm glad I did because look at all the wonderful participants we have here who put life into this forum on a daily basis. And we have only just begun!!

Do you truly believe, Ann, that what is going on could "damage the office of the Presidency?" Are we not, as a Democracy, strong enough to weather this storm?

Robby

Robby

Robby

For various legal and time-consuming reasons, the new Congress begins its session January 1st and the new President has not yet been decided. Then comes noon on January 20th and there is no new president there to be inaugurated. We cannot have a nation without a President, not even for one minute. Who is the President five minutes after noon? The current President?

Robby

There can be no doubt that the philosophies of America are divided into two camps. Does this make it impossible for Democracy to work? deTocqueville says (above) that the "sovereignty of the people" rules. What if "the people" are divided as equally as appears to be in this Year of 2000? Does one approach to running this Democracy neutralize the other? Do the workings of this Republic then grind to a halt? Have we come to realization that Democracy, as we know it, does not work?

One French king (I forget which) said "Le loi, c'est moi" (I am the law.) There would be no stalemate there; the government would continue to function. Is monarchy perhaps better than Democracy? Prior to World War II, many Italians were all for Mussolini's facism because, as they said, "he made the trains run." Hitler's naziism made it possible for a beautiful autobahn (predecessor to our current interstate roads) to be created. Stalin's totalitarianism enabled the Soviet Union to be the first nation to explore outer space.

Are we seeing the seeds of death in Democracy? What are your thoughts?

Interesting to note, think it was David Broder this AM. While the percentage of people who went to the polls increased somewhat over the last election, the increase was in the affluent voters, and a decrease in the lower income voters.????

Could it be that what is really being said is the Country as a whole is saying leave things alone? Its always amazed me to here the comments of "the people want" when it is truly only about 1/2 of the people.

Robby

Any reactions?

Robby

Robby

1 - I tuned into the middle of a broadcast this morning to hear the commentator discussing how the electoral college came into being. It was extremely interesting and sounded like a high school or college civics class. What was fascinating to me was that it was part of a standard news broadcast. Prior to two weeks ago, when did you hear news commentators discussing such erudite topics to a general audience?
2 - A few weeks ago apparently apathetic college students were ignoring the debates and the campaigning, some of them saying they were not even going to vote. Now some of them are holding protests related to how elections are held in this nation.
3 - Ordinary citizens not too long ago were saying they were going to vote but that "my one vote doesn't count." Now listen to them!

Looking at this whole thing from a broad perspective, and looking at it as a historian 25 years from now might look at it, is it possible that this event is one of the best things that could have happened to us? We have all heard the expression that "some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." Could it be that America, as a nation, just had some more greatness "thrust upon it?" Are we all suddenly awake from a doze?

Robby

Some people vote by computer touch-screen. Others use machines designed in 1892. Voters in Palm Beach County, Fla., use punch cards and 1960s tabulating machines that are no longer made. Polling hours vary by community, as do the resources to hold an election. This accounts in part for the short lines in wealthy areas and the long lines in poor ones. In effect, the American voting system is no system at all. Voting experts say that the ballot mess in Florida is a reflection of the scattershot ways public officials are elected in this country.

Do you folks believe that there should be one system for the entire nation?

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

LePore has been hit with voter lawsuits. A Democratic state lawmaker said he plans to organize a petition drive to force her from her elective office. Demonstrators have denounced her. Said one citizen: "Her head is going to roll."

LePore has said she sent the ballot to dozens of candidates and others before the election and heard no complants. She has gone into semi-seclusion.

Robby

Robby

I agree with you completely that, under a crisis (especially a foreign one), Americans unite. Certainly no one of us wants one, and yet...?

In other words, get away from the house and the TV news. Time will take care of this dilemma. In the meantime, we must get on with our lives!!

Idris, when we do use the electoral college, that is when the state with the higher population gets the larger vote. Did I misunderstand your above post?

Robby, what I meant about the presidency's power degredation was: Any one going in under questionable circumstances would have a hard time here in the US and also abroad. Seems as if our country will lose from this mess. I am impressed that cooler heads will prevail and not the arguers from each party that our thrown at us on an hourly basis. There is law to settle this and it will be followed. For awhile, I listened to CNN until I was a crazy person. Decided to return to my sewing machine and the Christmas presents that I am making.

Who referred to our country as a Republic? Was it Jefferson? or Adams? Can't remember!

Perhaps, even if we don't go outside, we can sit quietly in our own homes with our eyes closed for a minute and thank those who fought for Democracy.

Robby

"The Palm Beach County chief administrator, said that the county had set up several phone lines to help voters but some were unstaffed on Election Day. He said that the county set up 38 phone lines to help voters and precincet workers calling with questions, but hired only 34 people to operate them. He said: 'There were phone lines, but no one to answer them.'

"At the same time, some precinct workers said that they were under strict instructions to turn away people asking for voting assistance -- mainly out of fear that it would slow down the voting. One precinct worker in Boynton Beach said she and other workers at her precinct turned away voters who besieged them with questions. 'People were coming up to me,' she said, 'and I had to follow the directive -- "Don't help anyone. Don't talk to anyone.' She said that under directions given by the Palm Beach County supervisor of elections, precinct workers were supposed to provide assistance to voters only if there was a mechanical problem with the voting machine. Everyone else, she said, was supposed to be turned away.

"The county administrator said voters who needed help were supposed to receive it. and that no one is supposed to be denied. He said that he had heard that at last one voter who had marked his ballot incorrectly had been refused a second ballot. Under state law, he said, voters who punch their ballot cards incorrectly are supposed to receive a second or third ballot so they can try again."

Robby

Robby

Robby

"Abolishing the Electoral College would not necessarily be a good thing. The Electoral College is one of the political safeguards of federalism. Those structural features of our Constitutional system assure that the states count as distinct political entities, not merely administrative units of one central government.

"In every Presidential election, the candidates are forced to persuade the voters state by state. They must address the particular concerns of voters as citizens of those states. They must work through local organizations. Presidential candidates court governors, appear at rallies with local political figures, and learn the names of state party officials. This process is not just an exercise. The candidates must be briefed on local personalities and local issues. Skillful politicians will remember these acquaintances and this knowledge of local concerns will stick with them when they get to the White House.

"Thus are formed networks of concern and of mutual interest and understanding. Our national politics takes on a texture into which the threads of particular state concerns and personalities are tightly woven.

"We could become a more centralized state, like France. A constitutional amendment to elect the President by the plurality of the popular vote would redirect the candidates' attention to national audiences. National issues would drive out any attention to local concerns or personalities. Every locality and region would slowly homogenize with every other into one unidfferentiated mass. Large business groups, unions and special interests groups whose focus was national would play a still large role in presidential politics. If we were guaranteed that the Electoral College would never diverge from the popular vote, then it wuld be only the popular vote that counted. If we want states to play a part in federal campaigns, we must be prepared occasionally to accept a divergence between the electoral and popular votes."

In addition to constantly forgetting that we are a Republic, what many people from other nations do not understand and what we Americans so often forget is that we are a FEDERATION of 50 separate governments. We are the UNITED states of America.

This is all very well so far as it goes but I don't believe that some of those election officials are taking Democracy seriously enough. For example -- I would suggest in the sunlight test employing an ophthamologist (better yet a panel of three ophthamologists) -- board certified of course -- to examine the strength and acuity of the eyes of those officials doing the test. Let's not leave the decision of who is going to occupy the Oval Office up to how much sleep an election official got the previous night. Even this is not enough. They should also employ a panel of three meteorologists to determine the extent of the cloud cover and the power of the sunlight arriving at Palm Beach County on the particular day of the re-count. And let us not forget that in a day which has many passing clouds, the sunlight comes and goes minute by minute. A photography expert with a light meter should be stationed by the door to keep the officials up to date on this important statistic.

In California, the statute does not go far enough. What kind of fan do they mean? An electric fan which could conceivably blow 1000 valuable American votes all over the floor in five seconds? How awful for the loser to spend the next four years knowing that he had been blown away! I would imagine they mean a hand fan but most people these days do not use hand fans and so an expert is required. Perhaps an elderly woman who remembers the old genteel days when the slow use of a fan was a signal and who knows how to give the fan that subtle flutter. Better yet, import one or more Japanese Geisha girls with skill in this area to fan the ballot but simultaneously pass across to the harried election officials the calm they need in this important participation in Democracy.

I submit that the nation is not taking a Presidential election seriously enough. If deciding upon the next leader of the Free World requires buying a stock of hand fans and eye drops and hiring medical and scientific professionals, so be it!!

Your thoughts, folks?

Robby

And what do you mean by humour (notice my spelling) -- I thought I was giving some serious suggestions. This is a Presidential election and humor (notice my spelling) has no place. For example, they talk about "hand count." With which hands do they count the ballots -- left or right? Do we want someone who leans toward the left (or the right for that matter) to determine the direction of this nation for the next four years? The only answer is to count the vote with both hands. But, then again, do we want an election official to be ampidextrous? This is not an easy problem to solve. We often say that people vote with their feet. Perhaps we might consider allowing the officials to count with their feet.

OH, THIS IS TOO MUCH FOR ME. I AM JUST A POOR LITTLE DISCUSSION LEADER TRYING TO MAKE MY WAY IN THIS WORLD!!

Robby

1 - Head of State - receives representatives of other governments and performs a variety of ceremonial duties such as holding state dinners and bestowing the Medal of Honor. Expected to travel within the country occasionally and also travel extensively abroad and appear before the people of many countries. Symbolizes the sovereighty and power of the United States.
2 - Head of Government -

a. Appoints heads of government departments (who constitute the Cabinet) and heads of agencies.
b. Provides leadership in legislation. Establishes the agenda for Congress.
c. Gives State of Union address and Economic Report, accompanied by massive detailed budget.
d. Sends special messages to Congress, each devoted to a single topic, such as foreign aid, welfare, or agriculture.
e. Is a constraining force on Congress. Has the power to veto.
f. Is the nation's Chief Diplomat. Truman said: "I make American foreign policy."
g. Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces. Responsible for nation's security.
h. Single most potent policy maker in economic and social affairs, eg health, welfare, crime, energy, inflation, unemployment, U.S. balance of payments, strength of dollar abroad, and budget deficit.
i. Establishes and administers national policies, eg social security, education, health.
j. Nation's political leader and leader of his political party. Chooses the chairperson of the party's national committee and oversees the national committee and the national party bureaucracy.
k, A public leader. Must excel at public leadership and use successfully dominant communication media.
l. Organizer of Executive Office. Works closely with chief of staff, press secretary, appointments secretary, special couunsel, asst. for national security affairs, cabinet secretary, asst. for congressional liaison, asst. for public liaison, and a sizeable junior staff.
m. Commands a large institutional staff concerned with managing the executive branch and with policy cevelopment.
n. Works closely with National Security Council and is concerned with whole gamut of foreign policy includng military strategy.

Those people in Florida and elsewhere counting ballots will tell us which man we gave those responsibilities.

It is tiring and agonizing I admitt. But thank god we can all say proudly, “Only In America.” No need for us to be embarrased. “We The People” have a right to do this.

Robby

Robby

Robby

If ever there was a movement by "the people," that was it. I can see why it was so emotional. Please tell us a bit more about it.

And I would also be interested in a comment about this by Eloise who, I believe, lives in Montreal.

Robby

Robby

However!! Who knows??

Thank you so much for sharing that and for any additional comments on this subject you care to make. I am so pleased that we have a forum here where we can hear the thoughts of Idris and Eloise's thought.

deTocqueville speaks so often of us in the United States as being Anglo-Americans and although we are obviously bringing in more people each day from nations all over the world, the fact remains that our laws and most of our customs are of English derivation. But I hear what Eloise is saying. She "lives in two different cultures." I know a bit about French customs and French attitudes, not to mention the language. Shortly after the war I married a girl from France. There is, as Eloise says, a different culture altogether. The language is only part of it. I always see language as a "door" to another culture and to just be able to open the door is not enough. One must go through the door and mingle with those people who are "different."

By the same token, Eloise, when you say give Quebec "special" status, what do you mean? Shouldn't everyone, of no matter what heritage, be treated equally according to the law? I am out of my depth here but am listening carefully to comments being made by citizens not in Democracy as the United States knows it, but a Democracy nevertheless.

"There was a time when we also might have created a great French nation in the American wilds, to counterbalance the influence of the English upon the destinies of the New World. France formerly possessed a territory in North America scarcely less extensive than the whole of Europe. The three greatest rivers of that continent then flowed within her dominions. The Indian tribes which dwelt between the mouth of the St. Lawrence and the delta of the Mississippi were unaccustomed to any other tongue than ours and all the European settlements scattered over that immense regions recalled the traditions of our country -- Louisburg, Montmorency, Duquesne, Saint-Louis, Vincennes, New Orleans (for such were the names they bore) are words dear to France and familiar to our ears.

"But a course of circumstances, which it would be tedious to enumerate, have deprived us of this magnificent inheritance. Wherever the French settlers were numerically weak and partially established, they have disppeared. Those who remain are collected on a small extent of country, and are now subject other laws. The 400,000 French inhabitants of Lower Canada constitute at the present time the remnant of an old nation lost in the midst of a new people. A foreign population is increasing around them unceasingly and on all sides, who already penetrate amongst the former masters of the country, predominate in their cities, and corrupt their language.

This population is identical with that of the United States. It is therefore with truth that I asserted that the British race is not confined within the frontiers of the Union, since it already extends to the Northeast."

Robby

Question:--Why (as stated in the Link) have French Canadians always feared assimilation? Many people immigrating to the United States purposely immerse themselves into our culture and raise their children to be Americans who follow the customs here and accept assimilation.

Robby

Robby

"The Electoral College is one of the political safeguards of federalism."

The EC was also shaped to mirror the bicameral legislative model - another compromise, melding the concerns of popular, national voting, and states rights. Each state got electors on the same basis as Congress (2 for each state) and the House (based on population) - thus accruing power to the populous, urban states. Essentially the EC was a jury-rigged compromise that was another bone to aid in moving the Constitutional drafting along. The fears of the framers regarding the multiple candidate gridlock that the EC-to-Congress handoff was supposed to allay was almost immediately proven faulty anyway. The first contested election (1796) yielded two candidates: Adams and Jefferson, from two parties. Congressional caucuses, then political conventions and Presidential primaries almost immediately made the main reason for the EC obsolete. Electors quickly became tools of the party system, and the winner-take-all rule, nearly universal since as far back as 1820, further made them a vestigial element of our political system. Given how the party system has evolved (and quickly), it is unlikely that the framers would even consider such a pointless institution today. This is a system that has never worked as intended. High time for a constitutional Amendment to abolish it. I say this as one who shudders at the idea of proposing Constitutional Amendments for every cause that comes down the block. This is different. This is a branch that needs pruning. Dead on arrival.

Further, Robbie quotes Fried as saying:

"A constitutional amendment to elect the President by the plurality of the popular vote would redirect the candidates' attention to national audiences."

As far as the various methods of vote gathering - the fact is that we all must be fully aware by now that the methods of vote gathering and counting do not necessarily reflect the "will of the people." This is a shame and has made me realize that I can still be naïve in this day and age. Besides EC reform or abandonment, we really need infrastructure resources to bring our methods of voting and vote counting into the 21st Century. It's just a shame that a voter's intent can be subverted by the process to such a large degree. And I'm not talking about just reading the ballot instructions carefully - I'm talking about the mechanics of voting and tabulation.

Mary Page said that she wishes that "all 50 states would require those electors to vote according to the outcome of the vote in the State they represent." Some 24 (I think) states do that now - but in any case most scholars agree that those laws are probably not constitutional (proscribing as they do what is laid out in the Constitution). But Mary does list another interesting proposition. I certainly agree with her proposal for up to date voting machines. I disagree, however, with the idea of proscribing election coverage in any way. Turn off the TV is the only thing we can do. For many years, the networks have not "called" states until the polls were closed in those states. They did, however, jump the gun in Florida this time (Panhandle). I just don't see how the press can be forced to limit coverage in any way - and I wouldn't want to see it. None of this happens to bother me, although I know that some feel that this early reporting impacts those out West. It really shouldn't. Wonder if there is any hard data to verify this? To others, it just takes away from the drama of those rough amd tumble election nights of our youth. How about if states refrained from counting the vote until midnight on election night?

Charlie

Tuesday had been expected to be the Internet's big night because of its ability to deliver detailed election returns quickly but Nielsen/Net Ratings and Media Metrix both reported increased usage on Wednesday. On that day CBS had 541,000 users, Fox had about 674,000, ABC got more than 1 million users, MSNBC.com had 3 million and CNN.com had about 4 million U.S. users.

Traffic grew steadily during the week. CNN had 841,000 sunday, 2 million Mondfay and 3.5 million Tuesday before hittinbg 4 million on Wednesday. MSNBC more than doubled, CBS usage jumped more than three times and ABC had a nearly fourfold increase. Wednesday's CNN audience was five times that of the same period last week.

There can be no doubt of the future connection between elections and the Internet.

Charlie describes the Electoral College as a "jury-rigged compromise," that it "has never worked as intended," that our "decentralized society has long past" and that the College is "a branch that needs pruning."

Your thoughts, folks?

Robby

SOUND FAMILIAR?

Did anyone see Andy last night on 60 Minutes? Seemed the most serious editorial that he's ever done. This recount has gotten to all of us.

Robby, I have a friend in Atlanta who called me yesterday and says she thinks that deToq should have remembered that we are not a "democracy" but a "republic". And, that is in the Constitution, if I remember correctly. What say you?

Again I yield to those who are more expert in this field than I am but my understanding is that there are many kinds of democracies and that ours is a Republic. Our Constitution determines how our Democracy is to be organized as, for example, Article I, Section 1, which says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." In other words, the Congress sets our laws on our behalf rather than our doing it directly ourselves, as is done in New England town meetings.

Robby

Robby, I was so heartened by Andy Rooney last night when he said that in the end and there will an end, we should be thankful that we don't have soldiers in the streets with guns, a general just waiting in the wings to do a takeover of our government, rebels throwing "molotov cocktails" at the vote counters. In the end, we have a lot to be thankful for.

And, we are having some very hot conversations here in the olde Alden household with our two children and their families. Isn't is amazing that you thought you knew how someone thinks and you were all wrong? Its an eye opening experience, this election. Even my one and only of 48 years and I have many different views on this and sometimes find ourselves in the midst of a conflagration, but pull up the horses and say "whoa" and have a cup of tea!!

Now this new mini-crisis reminds us that the Federal Government has no power over Florida's voting procedure. Furthermore, court cases are now in processs -- one in a state court and one brought before a federal judge.

Which one has the final say? Which one do you want to have the final say? Do you believe that there should be less "federation" and more emphasis on states' rights? Let us remember that there was a conflict a century and a half ago that is called by some the "War Between the States."

Do you consider yourself primarily a citizen of the UNITED States or Canada or are you primarily a citizen of Virginia, or Maryland, or North or South Carolina, or New York or Ohio, or Iowa, or Florida or a specific province in Canada? Is there a state flag flying over your state capitol? Do you feel an allegiance to it? Do you vote in national elections but ignore local elections? Have you ever visited the national capital? Have you ever visited your state or provincial capital?

I consider myself an American first and I do vote in all elections, federal, state and local. I am proud of our state flag but my allegiance is to our American flag.

Robby

Robby

And of course America keeps moving constantly. For example, have those people who are concentrating on Florida noticed that state police in New Mexico have already begun impounding ballots from Tuesday's election in case they're needed for recounts or review later? So far there have been no challenges or calls for a recount or any allegation that there is any fraud. The impounding is more pro-forma than suspicion and affects all the paper ballots -- the early voting and absentee ballots. Officers have begun impounding ballots in Catron, Sierra and Socorro counties under orders from the State District Judge. (Anyone here from New Mexico or nearby?)

So please keep an eye on America while I am gone and perhaps from time to time read deTocqueville's quotes (above).

Hendie, its so good to see you again. Its been about a year since our sojourn to Chicago and where a lot of us on here met each other for the first time.

Well, the saga goes on, with the Gore people saying one thing and the Bush people another.

1 - Terrible idea! You need expertise to run a government. Eg - How much money shoud be spent this year on the NSF? On the NIH? On aid to israel? I follow politics closely but I have no way of answering these questions sensibly. You need hearings and discussions. There is corruption, of course, but dumping the rascals is the proper role of the electorate.
2 - It's a bad thing. Somebody in society has to think things through, hold hearings and figure out ways to get people to agree. I have a valid opinion about very few things. So does anyone else. We can generate information faster but still only absorb it at the same old rate.
3 - No, for the same reason the CEO of a company won't be replaced by direct decisions of the stockholders on what the company should do in various situations.
4 - No, I think even the most die hard internet addict will reject the notion that an instant decision, without debate or deliberation, would be in the interest of the country.
5 - I sure hope not. Never forget Toqueville's theory of the tyranny of the majority. Don't forget why we have a Bill of Rights. The nation cannot be run without dedicated leadership -- people who have the full time job of trying to run the country. The great mass of people can change their collective mind on a whim, and make the wrong decision without really thinking. The Internet is fine for getting information and shopping for exotic cheese, but it could never be a substitute for a leader.

Agree? Disagree?

Ginger

Robby

Robby

1 - Eight in 10 Americans ae ready to accept either of the candidates.
2 - More Americans are paying attention to the dispute over the presidency than any other news event polled by Gallup in nearly 10 years.
3 - Over six in 10 say they want an amendment to the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College so the president can be elected by popular vote.
4 - Two-thirds of the people who didn't make it to the polls last week said they are now sorry they didn't vote.
5 - Americans are intensely interested in the struggle to settle the presidential election, but a majority say they are not extremely worried about it.

Is anyone in America aware that our President left today for a historical trip to Vietnam?

Robby

Robby

Our Founders put their lives on the line so that we could freely vote!!

Trevor:--I don't have that percentage at the moment but perhaps Gary or others might.

Robby

Somewhere else it was stated that the increase was by notably in the more affluent vs the lower income groups.

Residents of the District of Columbia are now driving around with license plates that say "Taxation Without Representation" reminding us of the Boston Tea Party. The district is not represented in the Senate and has only a single delegate in the House who has no vote.

A recent survey of college graduates indicate that 55 percent of them did not know that while they may vote for President, residents of our nation's capital lack voting rights in Congress.

For example, in Alaska the people turned down a rererendum that would have legalized marijuana for all uses and would have released from prison people serving sentences for marijuana-related offenses.

What are your thoughts on this?

Robby

Robby

The newest offer by the Bush camp seems somewhat reasonable but the Dems disagree so its onward and upward to the courts. This should be in the hands of the people, not the courts. Interpertation and reinterpertation of the Florida law seems to go on and on. The lawyers must be making a fortune with this.

Robby

Robby

Apparently South Dakota's citizens have spoken strongly.

Robby

Robby

Would you have voted for that proposition?

Robby

America's face has changed. Whether this has had an effect on the vote, I don't know. Others here may have some comments on this subject.

All right, Robby, very funny. Do you suppose that our Herb Center is growning MJ on the side? I don't think so!!

Low voter turnout comes from different directions and reasons. One thing that a young man with a political science major reminded me of, was that not only do we have the right to vote but we have the right not to vote.

"Foreigners are watching. But they are not listening. They are watching our election the way they watch the N.B.A. finals on satellite TV -- to see which team wins, but with the sound off, because the words mean nothing. Neither candidate has offered any inspiring vision of America -- any argument for why its values and institutions were important for the world, or why the world, with both its needs and aspirations, was important to America.

"If they did turn the sound on, what they heard was a country where politics had been reduced to what your interest group can suck out of the government, from tax cuts to prescription drugs. There were poll-tested positions geared to interest groups, but with nothing to say about America as a whole. America has its prosperity because of its values, institutions and deeply imbedded ideals. Our enemies abroad paint us as nothing more than a sterile, money-grubbing society."

Friedman goes on to quote Emory University's Robert Pastor, who pioneered President Carter's election monitoring teams, as follows:--

"I have monitored 20 foreign elections. What I remember most is people in all these countries asking me at some critical point, 'How do you do it in America? Why are there no problems there'

"I always tell them: We have problems, but we have institutions that prevent our election problems from becoming violent or the results discredited. Those institutions are impartial election administrators and independent judiciaries. It would be tragic, not just for America but for the process of democratization around the world, if there were a rush to judgment in Florida that discredited, or short-circuited, America's election administrators or our independent judiciary."

What say you, folks? Are we doing ourselves an injustice in the eyes of the world?

In either of those cases, or if neither candidate gets Florida's votes, the House of Representatives would have no role in choosing a president, other than to participate in a January 6th ceremonial counting of the votes in a joint session with the Senate.

Walter Dellinger, professor of law at Duke University, said the reason the Constitution requires the votes of only a majority of those electors actually appointed to elect a President was that in the earliest days of the Union a state might neglect to appoint electors, and there was no reason for the process to be held hostage by that omission. In any case, Professor Dellinger said, "the problem we have is a Florida problem." If the president were elected by a direct popular vote like all other federal officials,, he said, a national recount would be required in an election this close. "This is less of a problem than we would have had if we had a nationwide recount," he said. "At least we know the problem is isolated in Florida."

Does this make us all feel a bit better? We will definitely have a new Presideent on January 20th.

Thanksgiving Day is a day of emotion. Choosing a President in a democracy is as much an emotional as a logical act. The people will not accept not being able to give thanks on that day of gratitude.

Therefore, not willing to get the multitude upset any more than they are now, both sides will start the wheels going now and will speed up the action 24 hours a day from now on to the point that, one way or another, we will be able on the morning of Thanksgiving Day give thanks that democracy worked and that a person has been chosen to take the oath on January 20th.

That is my hypothesis.

Jean still has her "youthful ideals" and would like to see "one world." Others in this and other forums are concerned when they hear this concept. As Jean says, the world is changing in many ways. Should we consider "boundaries" between American states and between nations as out of date?

Robby

In an odd twist to the bitterly contested race in New Jersey's 12th Congressional District, Republicans accused their Democratic opponents yesterday of inappropriately gathering dozens of votes from hospitalized psychiatric patients. The Democratic incumbent denied the allegations and said the Republican candidate was simply trying to cloud the legitimacy of a race he is likely to lose.

Although most New Jersey residents institutionalized with mental illness retain the right to vote, the Zimmer campaign said it believed that Democratic Party workers had gone into state psychiatric hospitals with absentee ballots and coerced patients into voting in some cases even filling out the ballots. So far, the Republicans said they had identified 120 ballots cast from a Hunterdon County psychiatric hospital, and were examining votes from at least five other centers. Both sides are awaiting an appeals court decision on whether 73 ballots in Mercer County can be added to 350 more paper ballots there that have yet to be counted.

The Zimmer campaign acknowledged that it could not prove widespread voter manipulation, but said a handful of patients had described visits by workers advocating a particular person's candidacy. The relatives of one patient with a diagnosis of schizophrenia said they were outraged when they learned that she had cast a vote. The woman, who has been institutionalized for 30 years, proudly told relatives during a family reunion last week that she had voted by absentee ballot. Her cousin said she and other relatives responded with disbelief. "We thought it was some kind of mock ballot, like the kind schoolchildren fill out, but then we learned it was real," said the cousin. "This is beyond the pale. She shouldn't be voting. This is a woman who says that God tells her what shampoo to buy." The patient said she had been avidly following the race on television. The absentee ballot, she said, was provided by the hospital librarian, who mailed it for her once she had filled it out. "I made up my own mind," she said, her voice faint but deliberate. "I usually vote Republican, but I admit I was a ticket splitter on this one. I voted for Geraldine Ferraro a few years back, because I wanted a woman in office."

Under New Jersey law, institutionalized mental patients can vote unless a judge has declared them incompetent. Upon admission, patients are informed that they have the right to vote, and hospital employees must provide absentee ballots and, when appropriate, take patients to polling sites. A mental health official said it was not up to individual staff members to decide who was capable of voting. "That is up to the courts," she said. She said campaign workers were not prohibited from entering hospitals and speaking to patients. A staff lawyer for New Jersey Protection and Advocacy, an organization that represents people with disabilities, said it was offensive to suggest that those grappling with mental illness were incapable of making intelligent decisions about politics. "Yes, not everyone in a psychiatric hospital is going to be able to vote, but many people are admitted at a time of crisis and later become more stable," he said. "Just because you're in a psychiatric hospital doesn't mean you're incompetent. "The days of `One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' are long gone."

The lawyer who argued against counting psychiatric hospital votes before the New Jersey appeals court, said the potential for abuse was enormous. "When someone is fragile or disoriented, anyone can come in and tell them which way to vote." The director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers University said New Jersey's law was very clear. As long as someone can fill out an absentee ballot, he must be allowed to vote. And, he added, "if they're able to vote, then someone should be allowed to solicit their vote."

Robby