Voting

[Keith F. Lynch]

Today I got a letter from the county registrar saying that my voting
registration has been canceled, as I was convicted of a felony.

It just never ends.

I called the registrar's office, and was told that it was just a
glitch and that I'm still registered.

Maybe they're telling the truth for once, and it's incompetence rather
than malice. It's not as if I could do anything about it either way.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Martha Adams]

On 11/01/2016 10:08 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Today I got a letter from the county registrar saying that my voting
> registration has been canceled, as I was convicted of a felony.
>
> It just never ends.
>
> I called the registrar's office, and was told that it was just a
> glitch and that I'm still registered.
>
> Maybe they're telling the truth for once, and it's incompetence rather
> than malice. It's not as if I could do anything about it either way.
>

"It's not as if I could do anything about either way." I disagree with
that, I think you already did something, you may have started something
which could grow in today's disturbed culture. Namely, you made over a
hidden matter into a public matter, where others can know of it and as
result, think about it. Seems to me, that changes the thing from a
private grump to seed of a public discussion *that's needed today*. So
the question now is, How far do you want to go with it?

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2016 Nov 04]

[Keith F. Lynch]

Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Today I got a letter from the county registrar saying that my voting
>> registration has been canceled, as I was convicted of a felony.

>> It just never ends.

>> I called the registrar's office, and was told that it was just a
>> glitch and that I'm still registered.

>> Maybe they're telling the truth for once, and it's incompetence rather
>> than malice. It's not as if I could do anything about it either way.

> "It's not as if I could do anything about either way." I disagree
> with that, I think you already did something, you may have started
> something which could grow in today's disturbed culture. Namely,
> you made over a hidden matter into a public matter, where others
> can know of it and as result, think about it.

I also called the Washington Post. They didn't seem interested, and
didn't print anything about it or about any similar instance.

On the other hand, yesterday I got another letter saying that I'm
registered. It's identical to the one I got two weeks earlier, and
makes no mention of the Halloween revocation claim.

So will I be allowed to vote? I'll find out in a couple days.

At least the election will finally be over in just two and a half more
days. And either Clinton or Trump has to lose. (If they both win,
that would be very bad, as it would mean civil war. The only thing
worse than a president is two presidents.)

> Seems to me, that changes the thing from a private grump to seed of
> a public discussion *that's needed today*. So the question now is,
> How far do you want to go with it?

I'll make a good faith effort to vote, but I'm not going to martyr
myself. I'm mostly only doing it because of the meme that if you're
allowed to vote but don't vote you lose your moral right to complain
about the government. And also out of reaction to those who are
trying very hard to prevent me and many others like me from voting.

[Martha Adams]

Hi, Keith. Upon reading my post, I think now my "How far do you want
to go with it," points in the right direction but as it stands, it's
too-much challenge, which I didn't intend. I'll try that line again,
and my present try is, "Of all the many possibilities, what do you
think is a future-oriented, nondestructive, and not necessarily quick
response to this present reality?

(Answers are easy. Answers that work are very hard, and I don't
believe there are any of those out there that are quick.)

I do agree that going out to (try to) vote has an important moral
consequence, as you said, and speaking from just now, I expect the
outcome of this election is going to put a lot out there to complain
about. So that's right to do. OK also on the voter suppression
point: I incline to not vote for *any* Republican, but their serious
voter suppression attempts clinch it strongly for me.

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Sun 2016 Nov 06]

[Keith F. Lynch]

Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I'll try that line again, and my present try is, "Of all the
> many possibilities, what do you think is a future-oriented,
> nondestructive, and not necessarily quick response to this
> present reality?

I think the best course is for everyone to have as little to do with
the government as possible. Don't ask anything of it except for
it to leave you alone. Don't grant it legitimacy. Think of it as
a criminal gang which has taken over. If almost everyone ignores
it, it will go away. Or will become purely ceremonial, like the
British monarchy or the papacy. There's still a pope, and he still
pontificates, but nobody has to pay attention to him. I look forward
to the day when the government declaring you a felon has no more
effect than the pope declaring you a heretic.

> (Answers are easy. Answers that work are very hard, and I don't
> believe there are any of those out there that are quick.)

I'm not a utopian. I don't think any of my solutions would work very
well. I just think they'd work better than government. But that's a
very low standard.

> OK also on the voter suppression point: I incline to not vote for
> *any* Republican, but their serious voter suppression attempts
> clinch it strongly for me.

Indeed. It seems that that party has given up on the pretense of
democracy. It's like a prosecutor who gets tired of going to all the
trouble of suborning perjury, coercing witnesses, and forging forensic
evidence, and instead just pulls out a gun in open court and shoots
the defendant dead. Even if he gets away with it, he's delegitimized
the system in everyone's eyes, and that's a great positive.

[Philip Chee]

On 07/11/2016 06:49, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> On the other hand, yesterday I got another letter saying that I'm
> registered. It's identical to the one I got two weeks earlier, and
> makes no mention of the Halloween revocation claim.

Apparently the GOP is sending out fake snailmail which tries to convince
possible democratic voters that they aren't eligible to vote. Possibly
they assumed that anybody the Democrat governor pardoned is going to
vote Dem.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[Philip Chee]

On 07/11/2016 12:04, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> Indeed. It seems that that party has given up on the pretense of
> democracy. It's like a prosecutor who gets tired of going to all the
> trouble of suborning perjury, coercing witnesses, and forging forensic
> evidence, and instead just pulls out a gun in open court and shoots
> the defendant dead.

Ob2000AD: I Am The LAW!

[Keith F. Lynch]

The Presumptive Mr. RASFF of 2016 <earthl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I bet keef votes democrat...he wants one of those obamaphones and
> some welfare...gib me dat clintonphone!...all the felons in VA will
> be voting Dem and scarfing up some benefits...

I see you're well on the way to winning the prize for the most
inaccurate person in this newsgroup. You can put it next to your
award for the worst spelling and grammar.

I will not be voting for any Democrat or any Republican. I have never
accepted, or even applied for, any government benefit. All I want
from government is to be left alone.

I have no idea what Obamaphones or Clintonphones are.

If by "felon" you mean someone who was once convicted of a felony,
that's a useless category. It correlates much more strongly with
race; with relative poverty or former relative poverty; with gender;
and most strongly of all with trust, or rather former trust, in the
police and in the system, than it does with criminality. It's a fact
about the government, not about the person, as proven by the fact that
the only way to determine whether a person is a "felon" is to ask the
state. There's no possible test of the individual that that can
determine this: Not a chromosome test, not an MRI, nothing.

If by "felon" you mean someone who actually committed a felony, it
includes most Americans, including both Clinton and Trump. For
instance anyone in Virginia who had oral sex even once, even in
private with their spouse, before 2003, is a felon.

By either definition, thinking that felons all have anything in
common is ludicrous. You'd do as well to demonize or stereotype
people born in the summer, or who have blue eyes, or who have the
letter E in their name.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> On the other hand, yesterday I got another letter saying that I'm
>> registered. It's identical to the one I got two weeks earlier, and
>> makes no mention of the Halloween revocation claim.

> Apparently the GOP is sending out fake snailmail which tries to
> convince possible democratic voters that they aren't eligible to
> vote. Possibly they assumed that anybody the Democrat governor
> pardoned is going to vote Dem.

No, when I phoned the registrar's office they confirmed that they
had sent the letter. They said that it was just a glitch, and that
I should ignore it.

However, someone has been spreading false rumors that people can vote
via Twitter: http://www.snopes.com/can-you-vote-online-with-a-hashtag/
This could be just a joke, or it could be a serious attempt at voter
suppression.

[The Presumptive Mr. RASFF of 2016]

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 8:11:54 PM UTC-7, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

ok, that's it--i am writing in keith f lynch for president tomorrow!
I urge you all to do the same!

[Kevrob]

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 10:11:54 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> The Presumptive Mr. RASFF of 2016 <earthl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have no idea what Obamaphones or Clintonphones are.

See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

It is slanf for a low-service cell phone, subsidized by the universal
service fund, paid for by a "fee" the phone companies are required
to pay that they are allowed to pass on to customers. Originally, the
subsidy was landline only.

By some Orwellian process, this is not considered a tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Low_income_.28Lifeline.29

> If by "felon" you mean someone who was once convicted of a felony,
> that's a useless category. It correlates much more strongly with
> race; with relative poverty or former relative poverty; with gender;
> and most strongly of all with trust, or rather former trust, in the
> police and in the system, than it does with criminality. It's a fact
> about the government, not about the person, as proven by the fact that
> the only way to determine whether a person is a "felon" is to ask the
> state. There's no possible test of the individual that that can
> determine this: Not a chromosome test, not an MRI, nothing.
>
> If by "felon" you mean someone who actually committed a felony, it
> includes most Americans, including both Clinton and Trump. For
> instance anyone in Virginia who had oral sex even once, even in
> private with their spouse, before 2003, is a felon.
>

Once the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy laws of 13 states,
one could argue those statutes were not real "law" and such activity
had been mis-categorized as felony, at least since the 14th Amendment
was passed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

The Constitution does not bar the electors we will vote for
today from picking a felon, nor does it bar us electing felons
to Congress. Each house can expel a member after a 2/3 vote,
but they have to swear obnoxious member-elect in, before kicking
him out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack

Mark Twain's crack come to mind:

"There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress."

Kevin R

[Keith F. Lynch]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> I have no idea what Obamaphones or Clintonphones are.

> It is slanf for a low-service cell phone, subsidized by the
> universal service fund, paid for by a "fee" the phone companies
> are required to pay that they are allowed to pass on to customers.
> Originally, the subsidy was landline only.

> By some Orwellian process, this is not considered a tax.

Thanks. By analogy, a Trumpphone must be a luxury cell phone, looks
very expensive, *is* very expensive, has Trump's name prominently on
it, doesn't actually work any better than any other phone, but is
totally free of taxes. :-)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Low_income_.28Lifeline.29

What about those of us in the middle of the income scale? Can we be
neither taxed nor subsidized?

Phone companies have been guilty of doublespeak for a long time. Ever
notice the "federal subscriber line charge"? It sounds like a tax,
but it has nothing to do with the federal government or any other
government. It's just more money that goes to the phone company --
one of the asterisked "plus other taxes, fees, equipment charges, etc."
that's always in flyspeck print underneath the meaningless advertised
teaser rate that's in the largest and boldest possible font.

> Once the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy laws of 13
> states, one could argue those statutes were not real "law" and such
> activity had been mis-categorized as felony, at least since the 14th
> Amendment was passed.

That's not how law works. If the law was on the books when you
committed the action, then you're guilty. There are still people
serving life sentences for possessing marijuana in states where it has
since been legalized. And just try to find anyone who got their poll
taxes refunded.

> The Constitution does not bar the electors we will vote for today
> from picking a felon, nor does it bar us electing felons to Congress.

True. When my voting rights were restored, my rights to run for state
or local office in Virginia were also restored. But I've always had
the right to run for federal office. Lyndon LaRouche (a Virginia
resident then and now) ran for president while in prison after having
been convicted of mail fraud, a federal felony.

[Keith F. Lynch]

The Presumptive Mr. RASFF of 2016 <earthl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ok, that's it--i am writing in keith f lynch for president tomorrow!
> I urge you all to do the same!

You wouldn't be the first.

I'm certainly eligible, having been born in the US, being over 35, and
having lived in the US for at least the past 14 years. But I don't
want the job, and I don't think I'm particularly well qualified for
it. I'm better qualified for it than either Trump or Clinton, but
that's not saying much.

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 10:52:26 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> The Presumptive Mr. RASFF of 2016 <earthl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ok, that's it--i am writing in keith f lynch for president tomorrow!
> > I urge you all to do the same!
>
> You wouldn't be the first.
>
> I'm certainly eligible, having been born in the US, being over 35, and
> having lived in the US for at least the past 14 years. But I don't
> want the job, and I don't think I'm particularly well qualified for
> it. I'm better qualified for it than either Trump or Clinton, but
> that's not saying much.
> --

Keith, you could be what we called, back when I was part of the
"brain trust" (**kaff** **kaff**) running the Wisconsin Libertarian
Party, a "paper candidate." You get nominated, get your name on
the ballot, but don't spend a dime or a minute campaigning.

In a year when we had a presidential or gubernatorial race, and perhaps
other statewide offices being contested, we'd recruit folks who were
committed to do some campaigning for Attorney General, Secretary of
State, Federal Senator. I know of one Lt Governor candidate who would
fill out questionnaires sent out by the likes of the League of Women
Voters, and did some phoned-in interviews on talk radio, including
one multi-candidate debate. He never had to leave the house, or
put on pants. A real paper candidate is only a ballot placeholder,
and doesn't campaign at all. The point is to LOOK like an active party,
so at least enough people vote that line so it doesn't have to be
re-qualified 2 or 4 years later by petitioning. That process, and
attendant lawsuits, eats up most of the money a minor party can
raise.

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 10:46:18 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> >> I have no idea what Obamaphones or Clintonphones are.
>

> > It is slang for a low-service cell phone, subsidized by the

> > universal service fund, paid for by a "fee" the phone companies
> > are required to pay that they are allowed to pass on to customers.
> > Originally, the subsidy was landline only.
>
> > By some Orwellian process, this is not considered a tax.
>
> Thanks. By analogy, a Trumpphone must be a luxury cell phone, looks
> very expensive, *is* very expensive, has Trump's name prominently on
> it, doesn't actually work any better than any other phone, but is
> totally free of taxes. :-)

The land the cell towers are sited on has also been purchased
on behalf of the Trumpphone Co by a unit of government (ab)using
the eminent domain power. And/or, "Trumpphone" is just a brand.
The phone service is actually provided by Tracphone, or some other
low-cost provider.

>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Low_income_.28Lifeline.29
>
> What about those of us in the middle of the income scale? Can we be
> neither taxed nor subsidized?
>

No,you get both. That way they can claim they are doing all sorts
of wonderful things for you, that you might not choose to do, had
they left you alone. "Working hard for working families!"

> Phone companies have been guilty of doublespeak for a long time. Ever
> notice the "federal subscriber line charge"? It sounds like a tax,
> but it has nothing to do with the federal government or any other
> government. It's just more money that goes to the phone company --
> one of the asterisked "plus other taxes, fees, equipment charges, etc."
> that's always in flyspeck print underneath the meaningless advertised
> teaser rate that's in the largest and boldest possible font.
>

The FCC has a cap on that fee. The "federal" part is that it is
regulated by the Feds, rather than by a state agency.

> > Once the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy laws of 13
> > states, one could argue those statutes were not real "law" and such
> > activity had been mis-categorized as felony, at least since the 14th
> > Amendment was passed.
>
> That's not how law works. If the law was on the books when you
> committed the action, then you're guilty. There are still people
> serving life sentences for possessing marijuana in states where it has
> since been legalized. And just try to find anyone who got their poll
> taxes refunded.
>

That's true in the case of repeal by the legislature, or through an
initiative process. If the "offense" was "committed" under a law
that's been struck down, and that's the only reason you are banged up,
you are supposed to be let go. If they forget to spring you, you
might need a lawyer to file a motion. See:

[quote]

An Unconstitutional Conviction Vacated, 40 Years Later
30 Mar 2015

“The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that general sodomy
statutes were unconstitutional deprivations of personal liberties,”
explained George Critchlow, who supervised this case. “The Clinic
was dumbfounded to encounter someone still in prison on a sodomy
conviction. We quickly filed a motion with supporting brief to set
aside the original judgment and sentence in Walla Walla Superior
Court.”

The Walla Walla prosecutor’s office elected to contest the filing
on a few different fronts, including an argument that the defendant
was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches to raise the issue
so late. However, the court agreed with the defendant, ruling that
the Washington statute was facially unconstitutional. Due to that
ruling of the court, the defendant will soon be released.

[/quote]

https://www.law.gonzaga.edu/blog/vacated-conviction/

> > The Constitution does not bar the electors we will vote for today
> > from picking a felon, nor does it bar us electing felons to Congress.
>
> True. When my voting rights were restored, my rights to run for state
> or local office in Virginia were also restored. But I've always had
> the right to run for federal office. Lyndon LaRouche (a Virginia
> resident then and now) ran for president while in prison after having
> been convicted of mail fraud, a federal felony.
> --

LaRouche was following in the footsteps of Socialist Eugene Debs,
who ran from prison in 1920, and got over 900k votes.

Kevin R

[Keith F. Lynch]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Thanks. By analogy, a Trumpphone must be a luxury cell phone,
>> looks very expensive, *is* very expensive, has Trump's name
>> prominently on it, doesn't actually work any better than any
>> other phone, but is totally free of taxes. :-)

> The land the cell towers are sited on has also been purchased on
> behalf of the Trumpphone Co by a unit of government (ab)using the
> eminent domain power.

Seized from a widow. And the check to her bounced.

> That's true in the case of repeal by the legislature, or through an
> initiative process. If the "offense" was "committed" under a law
> that's been struck down, and that's the only reason you are banged
> up, you are supposed to be let go. If they forget to spring you,
> you might need a lawyer to file a motion.

I'm skeptical. People convicted based on confessions given without
Miranda warnings weren't freed, or even retried, after the Miranda
decision. People convicted only because they couldn't afford a
lawyer weren't freed, or even retried, after the Gideon decision.

>> True. When my voting rights were restored, my rights to run for
>> state or local office in Virginia were also restored. But I've
>> always had the right to run for federal office. Lyndon LaRouche (a
>> Virginia resident then and now) ran for president while in prison
>> after having been convicted of mail fraud, a federal felony.

> LaRouche was following in the footsteps of Socialist Eugene Debs,
> who ran from prison in 1920, and got over 900k votes.

Right. I was pointing out that it still happens in modern times, and
for real (alleged) crimes. As I'm sure you know, Debs was convicted
only of sedition, i.e. for criticizing the administration.

I think Trump wants to bring that back, given what he said about
"opening up" libel laws, i.e. making it easier to sue or jail those
who criticize him.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:

>> I'm certainly eligible, having been born in the US, being over 35,
>> and having lived in the US for at least the past 14 years. But
>> I don't want the job, and I don't think I'm particularly well
>> qualified for it. I'm better qualified for it than either Trump
>> or Clinton, but that's not saying much.

> Keith, you could be what we called, back when I was part of the
> "brain trust" (**kaff** **kaff**) running the Wisconsin Libertarian
> Party, a "paper candidate." You get nominated, get your name on the
> ballot, but don't spend a dime or a minute campaigning.

I've long been puzzled that the Libertarian Party doesn't always do
that for every race. For instance here in Virginia's 11th district
the (Democratic) congressman was running unopposed. Neither the
Libertarians nor the Republicans bothered to run anyone in opposition,
which I found bizarre. Especially for the Republicans, as they have
no problems getting on the ballot.

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 11:00:03 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> >> Thanks. By analogy, a Trumpphone must be a luxury cell phone,
> >> looks very expensive, *is* very expensive, has Trump's name
> >> prominently on it, doesn't actually work any better than any
> >> other phone, but is totally free of taxes. :-)
>
> > The land the cell towers are sited on has also been purchased on
> > behalf of the Trumpphone Co by a unit of government (ab)using the
> > eminent domain power.
>
> Seized from a widow. And the check to her bounced.
>
> > That's true in the case of repeal by the legislature, or through an
> > initiative process. If the "offense" was "committed" under a law
> > that's been struck down, and that's the only reason you are banged
> > up, you are supposed to be let go. If they forget to spring you,
> > you might need a lawyer to file a motion.
>
> I'm skeptical. People convicted based on confessions given without
> Miranda warnings weren't freed, or even retried, after the Miranda
> decision. People convicted only because they couldn't afford a
> lawyer weren't freed, or even retried, after the Gideon decision.
>

The laws they were convicted under were still, presumably,
constitutional. The appeals courts and SCOTUS are loathe to
reverse results of trials. While, technically all those
convictions could have been reversed, each of the accused might
still be subject to arrest, new bail hearings and retrials.
Whether they were denied their rights in that particular instance
would be a matter of fact to be adjudicated. In some cases, there
might be enough info to acquit without any of the "fruit of the
poisoned tree" collected, frex, after the point a Miranda-style
warning would have been given.

> >> True. When my voting rights were restored, my rights to run for
> >> state or local office in Virginia were also restored. But I've
> >> always had the right to run for federal office. Lyndon LaRouche (a
> >> Virginia resident then and now) ran for president while in prison
> >> after having been convicted of mail fraud, a federal felony.
>
> > LaRouche was following in the footsteps of Socialist Eugene Debs,
> > who ran from prison in 1920, and got over 900k votes.
>
> Right. I was pointing out that it still happens in modern times, and
> for real (alleged) crimes. As I'm sure you know, Debs was convicted
> only of sedition, i.e. for criticizing the administration.
>

A case of a conviction that should have been overturned as
based on an unconstitutional law. If Debs were actually
"giving aid and comfort to the enemy," he should have been
tried for treason, which is much harder to prove- consider the
'2 witness rule."

> I think Trump wants to bring that back, given what he said about
> "opening up" libel laws, i.e. making it easier to sue or jail those
> who criticize him.

If he thinks he chafed under the strict libel hurdles for
criticizing public figures, before.....!

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 11:05:13 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> >> I'm certainly eligible, having been born in the US, being over 35,
> >> and having lived in the US for at least the past 14 years. But
> >> I don't want the job, and I don't think I'm particularly well
> >> qualified for it. I'm better qualified for it than either Trump
> >> or Clinton, but that's not saying much.
>
> > Keith, you could be what we called, back when I was part of the
> > "brain trust" (**kaff** **kaff**) running the Wisconsin Libertarian
> > Party, a "paper candidate." You get nominated, get your name on the
> > ballot, but don't spend a dime or a minute campaigning.
>
> I've long been puzzled that the Libertarian Party doesn't always do
> that for every race. For instance here in Virginia's 11th district
> the (Democratic) congressman was running unopposed. Neither the
> Libertarians nor the Republicans bothered to run anyone in opposition,
> which I found bizarre.

I know, from trying to recruit candidates, that some very fine people
are loathe to put their name on the ballot, even if they won't be asked
to actively campaign. There are privacy concerns. I know of one such
candidate who, having no "campaign events" to deal with on a Saturday
morning, stayed out late on Friday night and hoisted a few with friends.
He was fairly hung the next a.m. Cut to someone banging on his door at
some unghodly hour - before noon, certainly ! - who turned out to be a
wizened crone of an old woman, a real Soud Side M'waukee babushka, who
spoke heavily accented "English." This possible future constituent
had some beef with the city, and was making the rounds of the various
candidates for local office, pleading her case. Once our man had
changed from his bathrobe to street clothes, Swallowed a glass of
water and guzzled some aspirin, he had to listen to her rant in his
living room unintelligibly for a decent interval, then walk her, very
slowly, to the bus stop and get her on board. From his account, I
took her to be a nasty racist, so imagine what pleasant duty this was.
As someone attempting to curry favor from the electorate, the private
citizen's rational response - "Get the F*** off the property, you
racist F****, or I'm calling the cops!" - would be ill-advised.
That'd be just what was needed in the papers or on the TV news:
"Fringe candidate abuses 87-year-old grandmother!" No, thanks!

A less colorful objection is that potential paper candidates
want to keep a low profile for business reasons. I knew some
LP members who were public employees in union jobs, and when
it became known you supported anyone but the Democrats, it
caused friction. For a lot of private employers, should they
find out you were running for office they'd question your
commitment to the company. "Can't work late, Bob? Oh, yes,
you've got that state legislature job in your future." For
the self-employed, you risk alienating part of your customer base.
They'd probably think well of you if you ran for a local office
especially a non-partisan one: "Bob cares about our community!"
Slap a party label on it, and there are folks who will shop
across the street. Fly the LP or Green flags, and some will
file you under "dangerous kook."

> Especially for the Republicans, as they have
> no problems getting on the ballot.

The GOP and the Dems expect a minimum of campaigning, and would
spend some money. By not running anybody, they can dedicate
the resources to competitive races. In New York and Connecticut,
where candidates can be appear on the ballot under multiple
lines, it isn't unusual to see an incumbent judicial candidate
endorsed by several parties. (Fusion ticket).

Kevin R

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <o00qi9$pum$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Keith F. Lynch
<k...@KeithLynch.net> writes

>> Once the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy laws of 13
>> states, one could argue those statutes were not real "law" and such
>> activity had been mis-categorized as felony, at least since the 14th
>> Amendment was passed.
>
>That's not how law works. If the law was on the books when you
>committed the action, then you're guilty. There are still people
>serving life sentences for possessing marijuana in states where it has
>since been legalized. And just try to find anyone who got their poll
>taxes refunded.

Keith doesn't understand how the law works the situations are not
comparable.

The anti sodomy laws were declared to be ultra vires (outside the
powers) the legislature didn't have the legal power to implement them so
they were inherently invalid and were never actually law. So a
conviction is void as that was never law. The basically pointless 10th
amendment is a statement of the ultra vires principle which is inherent
in the nature of written law.

The marijuana possession laws were intra vires (within the powers) the
legislature has the legal power to implement them, it has merely chosen
to repeal them. While normally if a thing is legalised you would cease
punishment of those convicted of the now illegal thing that isn't
necessary. If you were to increase the speed limit on a stretch of road
a speeding conviction on that road remains valid.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar