| |||||||||||||
Republican governors in Democratic statesRepublican governors in Democratic statesPosted Sep 3, 2004 18:06 UTC (Fri) by huffd (guest, #10382)In reply to: Republican governors in Democratic states by proski Parent article: Linux in Government: Will Schwarzenegger Terminate Windows? (Linux Journal)
It means the constituents elected the correct official for the job. Unfortunately this govenor will never become a two term president like a predecessor who was also an intellectual thinker and not an emotional thinker.
(Log in to post comments)
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 18:57 UTC (Fri) by LogicG8 (guest, #11076) [Link] "Demolition Man" I thought it was bad at the time, apparently it's really prophetic... This is just the first step towards President Arnold.
---
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:16 UTC (Fri) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] Cute comments, but completely ignorant of the Constitution of The United States of America.
Please see Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
Therefore, with only a rudimentary reading of the Constitution, it should be obvious that Arnold, being born in Austria, is ineligible to become President of The United States of America.
Except of course in movies where the Constitution, or other realities of life do not apply.
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:24 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Thus the mention of the 61st ammendment in the previous comment :)
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:26 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] You're not paying attention. Given a constitutional amendment (e.g. "61st", above), that requirement could be rescinded. We don't just amend the constitution to promise equal rights for women (which resolution passed but was never acted upon) or to forbid citizens the right to marry their choice or partner (not formally proposed yet), or to make corporations legally more powerful than citizens (too late, it's in there). We also entertain frivolous changes, and when that gets too hard, just ignore the damn thing. (E.g. seating presidents and vice presidents who are demonstrably not of "sound mind and body".)
Corporate personhood is Supreme Court doctrine, not explicit in constitution Posted Sep 4, 2004 0:42 UTC (Sat) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] You wrote: We don't just amend the constitution [...] to make corporations legally more powerful than citizens (too late, it's in there).It should be mentioned that the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly make corporations more powerful than individuals. Rather, the Supreme Court has just interpreted it that way. Though I don't hold much hope for it happening soon, a future Supreme Court may decide to overturn that interpretation, in the same way that "separate but equal" was a doctrine established by one court, and undermined by a latter one (it technically wasn't completely reversed, but the doctrine was no longer doctrine after Brown). See the Wikipedia article on corporate personhood for more info. Of course, this is wildly off-topic. Rob
|
|||||||||||||