A somewhat ranting question

[Bob Sheridan]

Mark Graber wrote:

> "...  Among the numerous constitutional stupidities bequeathed to 
> Americans by Abraham Lincoln is the destructive notion that a party 
> can do whatever it wants (within that party's notion of constitutional 
> limitations) as long as that party has fairly carried an election."
>  
> This is the first time I've seen this notion, causing me to wonder 
> what other 'constitutional stupidities' A. Lincoln bequeathed us.

-rs

>
>
> >>> "Sanford Levinson" <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu> 10/26/04 04:09PM >>>
> The Senate operates under a number of informal understandings that are 
> necessary if the institution is to operate, including a lot of 
> "unanimous consent" that allows not reading the previous day's 
> Congressional Record and the like.  Under my hypothetical, should 
> Senate Democrats collaborate in allowing the Senate to function, 
> without engaging in peace-pact like negotiations with Bill Frist?
>  
> sandy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mark Graber
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:30 PM
> *To:* conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* RE: A somewhat ranting question
>
> Stealing from Wayne Moore, legitimac does not strike me as a 
> dicotomous variable.  One election tainted by dubious manuevers 
> probably does little to weaken notions of legitimacy among the elite.  
> But to answer Sandy's questions, I think there will be severe 
> problems, related to legitimacy if Republicans continue to gain office 
> in ways that too many Democrats regard as constitutionally doubtful.
>  
> MAG
>
>
> >>> "Sanford Levinson" <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu> 10/26/04 03:23PM >>>
>  
>
>
>  
> What would it mean for a Democrat not to accept that the United States 
> had a legitimate government.
>  
> 1) It would simply be a belief with no action components.  I would 
> continue to obey all laws passed by the Republican Congress, mostly 
> because I suspected I would be (illegally) thrown in jail if I did not.
>  
> 2) When the Democrats took back power, we would recognize no Bush 
> Administration laws as valid.
>  
> 3) What actions would I take if I believed Bush illegitimate.  
> Redouble my efforts to beat the coalition the next time.
>  
> In short, there is a sense in which many of us already believe 1).  
> Bet many Democrats in 1876 also believed 1). What else is Sandy asking? 
>  
>  
> I'm genuinely not sure "what else" I'm asking.  At one level, it would 
> simply describe a greater-and-greater alienation from the (national) 
> government.  But, as Bill Clinton might put it,  I'm lucky enough to 
> be in the economic group that will benefit from Bush's economic 
> policies (at least in the short run), and I'm too old to move out of 
> the country.  But the next level is that some people would actually 
> turn out to be serious in their "threats" to emigrate.  And the final 
> level, of course, is developing greater sympathy with the Michigan 
> Militia movement, which I certainly do not advocate.  But what would 
> be the consequences of a bunch of more-of-less respected people making 
> real arguments about "legitimacy," rather than simply saying that the 
> (legitimate) government is a bunch of rascals to be voted out in the 
> next election?  (Perhaps nothing at all, since no one takes our rants 
> seriously.)
>  
> sandy
>  
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>