October 29th, 2008
On October 29, U.S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle, a Bush Sr. appointee, issued an injunction, requiring Pennsylvania to furnish emergency paper ballots to any precinct at which at least half the electronic vote-counting machines have broken down. NAACP v Cortes, 08-cv-5048.
The state’s position had been that it would only provide such paper ballots to precincts in which all the machines had ceased to work. The decision says, “Some waiting in line, of course, is inevitable and must be expected. One must always choose between and among a number of candidates for different offices listed on the ballot and often, as in this election, there are questions to be read and considered. All of this takes time. Nonetheless, there can come a point when the burden of standing in a queue ceases to be an inconvenience or annoyance and becomes a constitutional violation because it, in effect, denies a person the right to exercise his or her franchise.” Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for this news.
http://www.ballot-access.org/
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Hart-Altmire debate canceled
Monday, October 27, 2008
By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire will not debate Republican challenger Melissa Hart as a range of polls show him with a double-digit lead in the contest.
Mr. Altmire, a first-term Democrat from McCandless, unseated Ms. Hart in 2006.
The initial debate was scheduled for last Tuesday at the Penn State Beaver campus but was pushed back a week because of a visit to the region by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
At that time, both sides indicated they were aware of the new date.
"Unfortunately, Congressman Altmire could not attend (tomorrow night's) debate because they rescheduled it without conferring with us and we had a conflict," said Tess Mullen, the Altmire campaign spokeswoman.
The Hart campaign issued an angry press release over the weekend accusing Mr. Altmire of ducking debates.
"It seems as though there is a concerted effort to hide Altmire from the voters and keep him from openly discussing issues with voters," said Alicia Collins, the Hart campaign manager.
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08301/923255-100.stm
By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire will not debate Republican challenger Melissa Hart as a range of polls show him with a double-digit lead in the contest.
Mr. Altmire, a first-term Democrat from McCandless, unseated Ms. Hart in 2006.
The initial debate was scheduled for last Tuesday at the Penn State Beaver campus but was pushed back a week because of a visit to the region by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
At that time, both sides indicated they were aware of the new date.
"Unfortunately, Congressman Altmire could not attend (tomorrow night's) debate because they rescheduled it without conferring with us and we had a conflict," said Tess Mullen, the Altmire campaign spokeswoman.
The Hart campaign issued an angry press release over the weekend accusing Mr. Altmire of ducking debates.
"It seems as though there is a concerted effort to hide Altmire from the voters and keep him from openly discussing issues with voters," said Alicia Collins, the Hart campaign manager.
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08301/923255-100.stm
Monday, October 27, 2008
Ralph Nader wants Scalia to address the corporate personhood issue
Following is a statement by Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader:
The word "corporation" or "company," or the words "political party," do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. How then can these two excluded corporate institutions have such power over Americans who, as "real people," are the only "persons" protected and given rights under our Constitution?
Corporations are artificial legal entities. They are not human beings. They do not vote. They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in Iraq. Why have they been given all the rights under our Constitution, except for the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and why did they obtain these rights from judges, not from the legislature?
I put these and other questions in writing to Justice Antonin Scalia -- deemed an extremely conservative judge who believes in "originalism," or strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Recently, Justice Scalia and I caught up together on the phone: I asked him how the application of the Bill of Rights and related constitutional protections to the artificial creations known as corporations can be squared with a constitutional interpretation theory of "originalism?"
Justice Scalia said he had not put much thought into unconstitutional corporate personhood, but if a case was brought before him on the topic, he would be happy to delve into it.
Unconstitutional corporate personhood is the central issue that prevents equal justice under the law and provides privileges and immunities to corporations completely outside of the framers' frame of reference in that large hot room in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787.
The $700 billion blank check bailout of Wall Street is the latest manifestation of private corporate domination of our national government, a situation that Franklin Delano Roosevelt foresaw as "fascism" in a message to Congress in 1938. The relentless decline in the livelihood of America's working families and growing unemployed reflects the radical concentration of power and wealth in a few hands.
To turn back this tide, the first step is for someone among the legal community -- the sooner the better -- to bring a case centering on unconstitutional corporate personhood to the fore on the floor of the Supreme Court.
And then, perhaps, Justice Scalia's originalism can be brought to bare on restoring justice and allowing the Constitution’s words "we the people," to once again ring true.
*Please see link to Mr. Nader's letter to Justice Scalia: http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/271-Letter-from-Ralph-Nader-and-Rob-Weissman-to-Justice-Scalia.html
Reported by Nader for President 2008
http://www.huliq.com/1/71474/ralph-nader-urges-courts-challenge-constitutionality-corporate-personhood
The word "corporation" or "company," or the words "political party," do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. How then can these two excluded corporate institutions have such power over Americans who, as "real people," are the only "persons" protected and given rights under our Constitution?
Corporations are artificial legal entities. They are not human beings. They do not vote. They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in Iraq. Why have they been given all the rights under our Constitution, except for the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and why did they obtain these rights from judges, not from the legislature?
I put these and other questions in writing to Justice Antonin Scalia -- deemed an extremely conservative judge who believes in "originalism," or strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Recently, Justice Scalia and I caught up together on the phone: I asked him how the application of the Bill of Rights and related constitutional protections to the artificial creations known as corporations can be squared with a constitutional interpretation theory of "originalism?"
Justice Scalia said he had not put much thought into unconstitutional corporate personhood, but if a case was brought before him on the topic, he would be happy to delve into it.
Unconstitutional corporate personhood is the central issue that prevents equal justice under the law and provides privileges and immunities to corporations completely outside of the framers' frame of reference in that large hot room in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787.
The $700 billion blank check bailout of Wall Street is the latest manifestation of private corporate domination of our national government, a situation that Franklin Delano Roosevelt foresaw as "fascism" in a message to Congress in 1938. The relentless decline in the livelihood of America's working families and growing unemployed reflects the radical concentration of power and wealth in a few hands.
To turn back this tide, the first step is for someone among the legal community -- the sooner the better -- to bring a case centering on unconstitutional corporate personhood to the fore on the floor of the Supreme Court.
And then, perhaps, Justice Scalia's originalism can be brought to bare on restoring justice and allowing the Constitution’s words "we the people," to once again ring true.
*Please see link to Mr. Nader's letter to Justice Scalia: http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/271-Letter-from-Ralph-Nader-and-Rob-Weissman-to-Justice-Scalia.html
Reported by Nader for President 2008
http://www.huliq.com/1/71474/ralph-nader-urges-courts-challenge-constitutionality-corporate-personhood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)