the 1st 'birther' state

[bankside]

So, in Europe, you think that all elections in the different states/countries should be run by the EU?

For EU-level positions, yes. Each state can run national elections on their own however.

 

[Kulindahr]

Where has anybody made the argument that the federal government would be meddling in the affairs of state-level elections? Your analogy doesn't fit the circumstances.

Read the entire post -- what I responded to suggested exactly that.

Why should any state have the right to singularly meddle in the affairs of federal elections?

What "federal elections"? There's no such thing. People in Arizona vote for people on the Arizona ballot. There's no federal ballot. And people in Arizona don't vote for anyone to be president of the United States, because no citizen votes for the president; what they vote for is who their state will vote for for president.

It's Arizona's election, Arizona's ballot. They could decide that no one who doesn't visit the state can be on the ballot, and that would be legitimate, because it's their election.
In fact, that's not a bad idea....

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the "a certification of live birth" the president provided IS a birth certificate. Hawaii clarified this long ago. It is simply an updated electronic birth certificate rather than a paper one. It is not some document that does not rise to the legal definition of "birth certificate". That is one of the falsehoods the birther movement has aimed to perpetuate.

But the State of Hawaii also said that the document provided is not the same thing as the actual birth certificate on file. It "is" a birth certificate in a legal sense, but not in an actual sense.

That's what I was illustrating with my reference to my situation in Oregon (so your reference to Hawaii is irrelevant): there's a real, honest-to-goodness document entitled "Birth Certificate" on file in Salem for me, and for everyone else (and it has a lot more information on it than the Certification of Live Birth, BTW). But if I want a copy of it these days, I about have to get a court order.

 

[Kulindahr]

For EU-level positions, yes. Each state can run national elections on their own however.

Then you should have no problem with the situation in the U.S.

Or are you saying that Senate and House elections should be run by the feds?

 

[bankside]

Then you should have no problem with the situation in the U.S.

Or are you saying that Senate and House elections should be run by the feds?

Yes of course they should be run by the feds.

Sorry, it gets confusing when you talk about The States as opposed to "the states" or "states."

If you had only called them cantons or provinces this would be much more straightforward.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes of course they should be run by the feds.

Sorry, it gets confusing when you talk about The States as opposed to "the states" or "states."

If you had only called them cantons or provinces this would be much more straightforward.

So some state elections should be run by the feds but others shouldn't?

The thing is that Senator is a state office, not a federal one. The people elected are the states' people, who go to represent their states in congress, a name that has become merely a label but used to mean "gathered together", with the implication of "in agreement". When the First Continental Congress met, Georgia and New Hampshire and Virginia and Pennsylvania were all "free and independent states", as distinct from one another as France is from Denmark. Through continued watering down of the Constitution (and outright abuse), the states have been reduced pretty much to provinces, but they're not supposed to be; they have to be viewed as sovereign nations electing representatives/delegates to a common gathering. That's why the election of members of Congress aren't "federal level", they're state-level.

 

[Lefty]

United States of America........USA

United Provinces of America....UPA

United Cantons of America......UCA


USA it is

 

[Kulindahr]

United States of America........USA

United Provinces of America....UPA

United Cantons of America......UCA


USA it is

If the continent to the south did the United Countries of Latin America, would they all be Bruins?

 

[bankside]

So some state elections should be run by the feds but others shouldn't?

The thing is that Senator is a state office, not a federal one. The people elected are the states' people, who go to represent their states in congress, a name that has become merely a label but used to mean "gathered together", with the implication of "in agreement". When the First Continental Congress met, Georgia and New Hampshire and Virginia and Pennsylvania were all "free and independent states", as distinct from one another as France is from Denmark. Through continued watering down of the Constitution (and outright abuse), the states have been reduced pretty much to provinces, but they're not supposed to be; they have to be viewed as sovereign nations electing representatives/delegates to a common gathering. That's why the election of members of Congress aren't "federal level", they're state-level.

Yeah, and that view of your country, after the First Continental Congress, is held pretty much by you.

It is not quite a unitary state, but the United States is one country. I think their may have been a civil war that touched on that issue.

Ironically, Canada was founded with provinces, and a linear road map to unitary government, and the provinces have somehow managed to succeed almost completely in carving up the country into 10 little fiefdoms, each with their own delusions of grandeur, and the federal government has been significantly eroded.

Moreover, if your vision was to have held, it should have been called a confederal government, not a federal one. And if Sir John A MacDonald's vision was to have held, we Canadians should have been celebrating "federation" not "confederation."

Anyway, e pluribus unum. It is really just one country, not 50, and it should have a proper uniform national election process. The way in which an Arizonan is an Arizonan is different from the way in which a Mainer is a Mainer. But the way in which an Arizonan is an American is equal to the way a Mainer is an American; government should follow suit.

Do as you will though, it's not my country. LOVE the Electrical College though - that makes lots of sense in 2010.

 

[JB3]

Yeah, and that view of your country, after the First Continental Congress, is held pretty much by you.

It is not quite a unitary state, but the United States is one country. I think their may have been a civil war that touched on that issue.

Ironically, Canada was founded with provinces, and a linear road map to unitary government, and the provinces have somehow managed to succeed almost completely in carving up the country into 10 little fiefdoms, each with their own delusions of grandeur, and the federal government has been significantly eroded.

Moreover, if your vision was to have held, it should have been called a confederal government, not a federal one. And if Sir John A MacDonald's vision was to have held, we Canadians should have been celebrating "federation" not "confederation."

Anyway, e pluribus unum. It is really just one country, not 50, and it should have a proper uniform national election process. The way in which an Arizonan is an Arizonan is different from the way in which a Mainer is a Mainer. But the way in which an Arizonan is an American is equal to the way a Mainer is an American; government should follow suit.

Do as you will though, it's not my country. LOVE the Electrical College though - that makes lots of sense in 2010.

One country, yes, but your little rant completely ignores the fact that very specific things were left up to the states in the constitution. Elections were one of them.

You rant quite often about how the US should stay out of other country's affairs, and I'd kindly ask you to follow your own advice and do the same in this situation. The US electoral system isn't the best, but it is what our founders prescribed for us, and it maintains a balance (at least in this regard) between state and national power.

 

[Lefty]

Droid,

This is not a forum I hang out in as I always get in trouble. But I have to

caution you about bashing the posters from all the other countries. History

has proven time and again that they each know what is best for the world and

most especially what the upstart USA needs to do before it comes to the

'WORLD" table. Please show more respect for the venerable and far more

knowledgeable peoples. It is important that we don't embarrass our selves or

further shred our dignity.

Thank You

Concerned American.

 

[Lefty]

oh jubhuggie boo boo,

As everyone with some time at JUB can tell you.....I am a parodist, sometimes

droll, sometimes wry or even caustic. As a general rule, when I am stone

serious or being vicious [vicious seldom] I say so at the start or at least the end

of the post. You picked up on part of my point...wryly made that these fuck all

know it alls didn't do all that great at home...why should I listen to them at

MY HOME......A lot of the world doesn't realize how fucked it would be without

this loud rude brazen abusive demanding fuck up of a republic in its world.

In my personal opinion this thread was and is pretty much a pisstake from the

GitGo. and I just couldn't swing by anymore without stirring the pot...My Bad lol

 

[bankside]

One country, yes, but your little rant completely ignores the fact that very specific things were left up to the states in the constitution. Elections were one of them.

You rant quite often about how the US should stay out of other country's affairs, and I'd kindly ask you to follow your own advice and do the same in this situation. The US electoral system isn't the best, but it is what our founders prescribed for us, and it maintains a balance (at least in this regard) between state and national power.

LOL. I do no such thing. I frequently rant about a sizeable number of vocal Americans who seem to feel that anything non-American is also either sub-American or anti-American. You've set off a string of posts which seem to qualify for that criticism. It is embarrassing for your country, and it undermines American influence, and thus the progress that America can make together with other nations. However, none of that stops me kicking the tyres on good ideas, with Americans, that might improve my country, the world, some other country, or your country.

So, yes, specific things were left up to the states in your constitution. Some of those were the wrong things, in my opinion. You have a constitution with procedures for amendment; I suggest you use them. I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to apply to move there and then apply for citizenship and then campaign for new national voting rules, but I'm happy to make the suggestion. Disagree? Why? Why are the constitutional provisions better than what I've suggested? Because they're the American default provisions is what your saying so far, and that just isn't convincing (to a non-American audience.)

 

[Kulindahr]

So, yes, specific things were left up to the states in your constitution. Some of those were the wrong things, in my opinion. You have a constitution with procedures for amendment; I suggest you use them. I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to apply to move there and then apply for citizenship and then campaign for new national voting rules, but I'm happy to make the suggestion. Disagree? Why? Why are the constitutional provisions better than what I've suggested? Because they're the American default provisions is what your saying so far, and that just isn't convincing (to a non-American audience.)

You have that backwards: everything was left to the states, except what was specifically assigned to the federal government. Thanks to pernicious European influence, that has been reversed but without any amendment to authorize it.

I agree we need amendments to the Constitution. We should start by undoing the seventeenth and sixteenth, adding items including the right to privacy, right of freedom of association, right to education as parents decide, right to sue government officials who screw up your life, and probably some others, along with one declaring that any right of a U.S. citizen is automatically "incorporated against" the states. Then give us proportional representation within state delegations for the House, and require that anyone desiring to run for an office that puts him/her in D.C. have more time spent in the private sector (religious functions and lawyer jobs don't count) at least as long as the length of the term of that office. Define the function of the National Guard as staying at home and guarding the country except in a formally declared war against a country which has actually attacked the U.S... tie salaries in Congress to the size of the deficit, but not to any surplus... make SS an independent entity into which SS funds collected by the government may be paid, but from which the feds aren't allowed to take a dime; make it not-for profit, too... require that any legislation proposed in Congress must have section and line from the Constitution showing how the government is authorized to do that, with a provision that should one-third of the members of either house challenge that interpretation the legislation is dead unless/until reviewed by federal court... and probably a few others. What we don't need is amendments which offer our officials a wider opening for turning us into an empire; they're too good at that in spite of the Constitution.

 

[JB3]

LOL. I do no such thing. I frequently rant about a sizeable number of vocal Americans who seem to feel that anything non-American is also either sub-American or anti-American. You've set off a string of posts which seem to qualify for that criticism. It is embarrassing for your country, and it undermines American influence, and thus the progress that America can make together with other nations. However, none of that stops me kicking the tyres on good ideas, with Americans, that might improve my country, the world, some other country, or your country.

So, yes, specific things were left up to the states in your constitution. Some of those were the wrong things, in my opinion. You have a constitution with procedures for amendment; I suggest you use them. I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to apply to move there and then apply for citizenship and then campaign for new national voting rules, but I'm happy to make the suggestion. Disagree? Why? Why are the constitutional provisions better than what I've suggested? Because they're the American default provisions is what your saying so far, and that just isn't convincing (to a non-American audience.)

You show in your post to have little to no understanding of the reasons why our constitution was written the way it was, and why we choose to ignore ridiculous European ideas such as your own. Before trying to tell us what's best for our elections, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with our founding documents.

 

[bankside]

You show in your post to have little to no understanding of the reasons why our constitution was written the way it was, and why we choose to ignore ridiculous European ideas such as your own. Before trying to tell us what's best for our elections, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with our founding documents.

Well, now you're just going ad hominem and my work here is done.

All you're left with is "You don't get it" instead of a lucid reply.

Anyway, as far as knowledge goes, we both had it wrong; as Kulindahr rightly reminded me, your system did enumerate federal powers and then leave the rest to the states. (But surprisingly of all people I would have expected him to tack on the bit about reserving the powers to the people, lest anyone be tempted to think they belonged to the 50 states.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, now you're just going ad hominem and my work here is done.

All you're left with is "You don't get it" instead of a lucid reply.

Anyway, as far as knowledge goes, we both had it wrong; as Kulindahr rightly reminded me, your system did enumerate federal powers and then leave the rest to the states. (But surprisingly of all people I would have expected him to tack on the bit about reserving the powers to the people, lest anyone be tempted to think they belonged to the 50 states.)

I didn't add it because "the people" weren't/wasn't part of the issue.

But since it's been mentioned, all rights lie with the people; other entities only have "rights" in the sense of over against a higher authority, in which case they are really the rights of the people being defended by a middleman.

All authority is nothing but a delegation of the rights of the people: the authority for armies and police to carry arms, for example, derives from the people's right to keep and bear arms; they delegate the limited exercise of that right to certain people within given parameters, and that is called "authority".


BTW, that wasn't ad hominem; it was just a bit short on cognitive content -- there's a difference that is critical.

 

[JB3]

BTW, that wasn't ad hominem; it was just a bit short on cognitive content -- there's a difference that is critical.

You guys'll have to forgive me if my posts aren't feature-complete today. An 8 hour shift at a sporting goods store during youth baseball season is completely draining.

 

[Kulindahr]

You guys'll have to forgive me if my posts aren't feature-complete today. An 8 hour shift at a sporting goods store during youth baseball season is completely draining.

I used to work at a grocery store during canned food sale week -- averaged lifting on the order of a half ton of food a day....

At least all I had to deal with were boxes and carts!

 

[Kulindahr]

Not really. In Hawaii, they went digital years ago. Meaning they transferred most, if not all, of their original paper documents into digital files. If you lose your original "long form" certificate and require a new one for any reason (passport, joining the military, etc) a "Certificate of Live Birth," just like the one that Obama provided is issued. They might verify the original records, which have now been digitized but there's nothing else they can provide that is approved or available to distribute.

I presume that "digitized" means they scanned all the originals.

That means it would be as easy as a bit of typing and a few clicks of a mouse to print a copy of the original.