Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(33,523 posts)
Sat Feb 19, 2022, 10:54 AM Feb 2022

A Thug, Who Hates the Constitution, Agreed to Subvert It, Pontificates On How to Save It.

NY (Trump) Times: Susan Collins: Our Democracy Shouldn’t Rest on a Rickety Law

Four years later, on Jan. 6, 2021, when a violent mob overran the Capitol, I realized that my unearned vote in the Electoral College was not amusing. This seemingly innocuous vote was an indication that our system of counting and certifying votes for president and vice president had deep and serious structural problems.

These unfortunate flaws are codified in the Electoral Count Act, which guides the implementation of part of the presidential election process included in the Constitution. This 1887 law, vaguely written in the inaccessible language of a different era, was intended to restrain Congress, but in practice it has had the unintended effect of creating ambiguities that could potentially be used to expand the role of Congress and the vice president in ways that are contrary to the Constitution.

Despite its defects, the law was not an issue for more than a century because of the restraint of the people who exercised the serious, but limited, constitutional responsibility of counting the votes. Vice presidents and Congresses sustained the will of the people — even when they did not like the result.

For example, we saw this in 1961 and again in 2001, when Vice Presidents Richard Nixon and Al Gore presided in a fair and dignified manner over the counting of the electoral votes despite having lost close elections for president. Vice President Gore even refused to hear Democratic objectors who were trying to make him president...


This thug, who subverted the Constitution (and it's interpretation by none others than John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the approval of John Marshall to the Supreme Court) now wants to tell us about "democracy" while belonging to a party and aiding and abetting a party totally and completely committed to overthrowing it, after giving us the likes of the fascist Gorsuch, the drunk rapist frat boy, and a religious fundamentalist almost of the Taliban ilk on the Supreme Court.

Has she, at long last, no sense of decency?

Apparently not.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

paleotn

(17,920 posts)
1. The problem is a fundamental difference in the meaning of the term, democracy....
Sat Feb 19, 2022, 11:37 AM
Feb 2022

It doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to Dems, some sane Republicans and the majority of Americans I think. When the GQP talks about democracy, that's not the liberal democracy we've known for generations. It's democracy for a few who share the same political beliefs, religion, race, etc. All others are either marginalized or disenfranchised. They believe in very limited democracy and even then only when it's in line with their agenda. Otherwise, they turn totalitarian on a dime.

Every time a Republican utters the word, it needs to include an asterisk for clarity. Or make them use another word instead. I think fascism is appropriate.

NNadir

(33,523 posts)
2. The definition you say they offer is in accurate language, oligarchy. It's not looking good.
Sat Feb 19, 2022, 11:42 AM
Feb 2022

The thug to who I refer in the opening post has signed on, successfully, to putting a member of the corrupt Christian Taliban, a rapist and a fascist on the court, as I noted in the OP. That does not bode well for our Constitution, and the Thug in question is abusing language. I admit that the original Constitution was oligarchical but a reactionary return to those origins will kill it finally.

paleotn

(17,920 posts)
3. She did, while at the same time trying to look "moderate"
Sat Feb 19, 2022, 12:06 PM
Feb 2022

to a rapidly changing Maine. She's playing one hell of a game of twister, but survived 2020 by her smallest margin yet, so that strategy is beginning to fall apart. Since the only part of Maine that's growing is the liberal south and coast, plus rank choice voting, her days are probably numbered. Good riddance. On the federal level, she's the only red stain on an otherwise solid blue New England.

NNadir

(33,523 posts)
4. Unfortunately, this thug will remain in office for 4 more years after the upcoming election.
Sat Feb 19, 2022, 12:53 PM
Feb 2022

Election to the Senate, which is supposed to be a deliberative body but is now imbued with radical revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the government, including the thug in question, is for a six year term.

She may live the entire time during which she will work to make other women chattel, suppress the voting rights of anyone not white and ultimately destroy voting rights, cheer for infectious disease, and do everything in her power to destroy the environment before she kicks off to be condemned by history.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Thug, Who Hates the Con...