john edwards

we dont need you stop politics you dont do good for this country

by walter jenkins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 3:50:09 PM
 

Was that English?

Wow.

by Rev. Robert Vinciguerra (32 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 7:09:32 PM
 

Interesting, but I think one could make the argument that

... South Carolina's constitution interferes with Article Two of the Constitution which states in clause 2:

You are a lawyer so you would know better than me, but I think the argument could be made that the nomination/primary/caucus process is all part of the larger process of choosing Electors for President and thus a power of the state legislature. If a state legislature decides to use secret vote counting in a primary, one could argue that this is a power that the legislature has under the US Constitution and that the US Constitution would trump the state constitution in matters of choosing Federal representation and a President.

by Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments) on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 11:26:42 PM
 

South Carolina's Constitution Clearly Controls

Mr. Leser, I see that you have done some thought provoking work which I agree with. So, I don’t mean to personally offend you, but you do seem to be arguing in favor of allowing votes to be counted in secret. I’m tired of nicely trying to debate with those who argue in favor of me giving up my rights, as I’m sure many of you may have noticed. You have stepped into the fray with the appearance that you are on the side of those who want to take away my rights. Let’s go.

Mr. Leser your biography indicates that you specialize in politics and that you held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. I’m curious. Did you speak out against counting votes in secret? Certainly, you would have understood that counting votes in secret might lead to problems like, stolen elections, right? Are you for counting votes in secret now? It sure sounds like it.

You say that someone could argue that a state could provide for counting votes in secret. Of course, that obviously has been done as almost all votes cast in America are counted in secret.

To be more accurate, I should say allegedly counted in secret because no one can see what the computer does inside when the votes go in. Who knows if they come out again? Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence that the official results have been incorrect, but don’t worry, be happy. We live in America, right?

Is it really acceptable to have our votes counted in secret? It must be. Our wonderful, honest leaders would not ignore the law and undermine our rights, even our most fundamental right to remove them from power, would they?

Article II, § 1 of the U. S. Constitution does give the legislatures of each of the states the power to determine the manner of appointing electors, but could a legislature do anything it wants? Could it say that no elector may be of African origin or that no elector may be a Catholic? Of course, not! The 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit such biased conduct.

Just so readers are not confused by your recitation of a provision from the U.S. Constitution, I’ll recite more provisions, and I’ll tell you how they were construed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Article I, § 4 of the United States Constitution gives the States the power to prescribe the time, place, and manner of elections. The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This was meant to clarify that the government of the United States has limited powers.

Based on these Constitutional provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the laws of the States control the manner of conducting elections as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution. This is why some States, I believe that they are Maine and Nebraska, do not follow the all or nothing rule of selecting electors based on who wins the popular vote in the Presidential election.

There is also a ballot initiative movement in California to change the method in which it selects its electors from the all or nothing rule. Why would the people try to amend the California Constitution if the Legislature could just ignore it? Isn’t the whole purpose of the constitutional amendment process to give the people some power to control our government? Well, please explain how that would work if the government could just ignore constitutional provisions whenever it wanted to do so. Would we be a government that followed the rule of law anymore, or would we have reverted to some form of feudalism where those with the power do whatever they want?

So, if a State’s Constitution prohibits counting votes in secret, does that abridge a power delegated to the United States? No. Is such a prohibition prohibited by the U.S. Constitution? No, the manner of conducting elections is delegated to the States.

What is the supreme law of the State? Its founding document, the State’s Constitution controls government power within the State as long as the State Constitution does not usurp a power delegated to the United States and as long as the State’s Constitution does not provide for some power which it is prohibited from exercising by the U.S. Constitution. This is basic Constitutional education as well as basic Constitutional law.

So, the manner prescribed for counting votes by South Carolina’s Constitution clearly controls on this point. Once again, Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of South Carolina states, "the ballots shall not be counted in secret." Computers count votes in secret. No one can see a computer count, and therefore, using computers to count votes in secret violates South Carolina’s Constitution!

But there is more. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the fundamental right to have your vote counted stating, "We regard it as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection by Congress as the right to put a ballot in a box." U. S. v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 386 (1915). Do you know how your vote was counted on a computer? Do you just have faith that it was counted correctly, or at all? Are you a true believer in secret vote counting just like so many who walk the halls of power right now?

Wait, a flack for those who want to keep counting our votes in secret might say, "that’s a case from so long ago, they could never have imagined computers and how "efficient" they are, we shouldn’t be bound by that quaint old case about counting votes." Some people have no conscience and will do anything for a buck. I face off with that type of person all of the time.

Here is what the United States Supreme Court said in another case about the right to have your vote counted:

"A consistent line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, and to have their votes counted. In Mosley the Court stated that it is ‘as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection … as the right to put a ballot in a box. The right to vote can neither be denied outright, nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing. As the Court stated in Classic, ‘Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted…." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). (Citations omitted.)

So, have I cleared up any confusion out there over whether or not South Carolina, and every other state by the way, should conduct its elections in a manner in which we can all make sure that our votes are counted which of course, does not allow votes to be counted on computers in secret? I hope so, and I hope that one of the Presidential candidates will stand up for our right to overthrow our government through peaceful means at the ballot box on election day. If not, there is no hope for any of us.

If you are one of that vast majority of Americans who do not want your votes to be "counted" in secret, step up, take action, call the Presidential candidate of your choice and ask them to take action to end the unconstitutional practice of counting votes in secret in South Carolina. It will help us bring this issue to the forefront throughout the United States.

by Mark Adams (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM
 

Vote by absentee ballot

The only way to possibly get your vote counted fairly is to vote by absentee ballot. You can apply for one online in a matter of minutes. The ballot is sent to you, you fill it out and then send it back. I refuse to vote on a touch screen machine. If millions of people would request these ballots, the system would become log jammed, and it would force them to get rid of the error ridden, hackable machines.

by Lynn Beckman (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 8:47:33 PM
 

An Absentee Vote is the Original Faith Based Voting Method

Absentee voting is the original faith based voting method. If you want to learn why, see http://www.votecount2008.org/faq.aspx and please join us in our effort to make sure that our votes are counted accurately!

by Mark Adams (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 12:57:25 PM
 

NOT ONLY ARE THEY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Quite often, THEY DON’T WORK!!!

See, CNN.com - South Carolina Primary Plagued by Bad Voting Machines, Snow http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/19/south.carolina.gop/index.html

by Mark Adams (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 3:33:05 PM