It's even simpler than that... there is "technically" no need for the replacement vote since according to the constitution of CA, if Davis is removed, the LT Gov would automatically become governor should he decide the election not be needed. He's already decided against that option
Please don't repeat B.S. spin that was floated for a day and then disregarded as the nonsense it is.
Yes the Lt. Gov. announces he is running if he could just Davis' place.
Please don't repeat B.S. spin that was floated for a day and then disregarded as the nonsense it is.
Excuse me?
What the hell are you talking about?
Someone made the statement that the easiest out would be for Davis to simply resign, giving the job to Bustamante. I pointed out that if they had plans to give the job to him, they would be pursuing a favorable interpretation of the California Constitution. It is in the constitution by the way.
If they wanted Bustamante to take the job as a fail safe, I think they would have gone that route.
I don't appreciate you talking down to me. Insinuating that my comments are nonsense and "B.S" is ignorant and disrespectful.
At least pretend like you're an intelligent individual when you respond. I don't know if you noticed, but I continually referred to the efforts in the third person ie: they. The indication there would be that if you were to make an assumption it would be that perhaps I don't agree with "their" interpretation even while pointing out that it is "technically" accurate.
In the future, it would be better if you would read carefully and take facts in context. Of course you could always do a little research instead of taking at face value your own ignorant "nonsense."
furthermore, what the f*$# does this sentance mean? Does it even qualify as a sentance? Do you proofread before you post?
Hel know I dont profred be4 I post.
Sorry about that.
I was saying that why would ol Cruz announce himself as a candidate if he could simply call for just the recall vote and take the seat himself?
He can't. You said that there was "technically no need for the replacement vote" according to the state constitution.
You are "technically" 100% wrong. The thing that made you believe this is the Democrats floated this as a nonsense talking point for about two days. Some clueless, lazy news organizations gave it some credibility so the talking heads
could keep talking for another hour.
I'll refer you to this little document I like to call, The California State Constitution.
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.
The issue they were trying to make hay as it were was this part...
Quote:
SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively.
So the Governor cannot run his own recall. However the issue is quite clear. There is a replacement candidate when the question of recalling has been answered.
Lastly this...
Quote:
At least pretend like you're an intelligent individual when you respond. I don't know if you noticed, but I continually referred to the efforts in the third person ie: they. The indication there would be that if you were to make an assumption it would be that perhaps I don't agree with "their" interpretation even while pointing out that it is "technically" accurate.
In the future, it would be better if you would read carefully and take facts in context. Of course you could always do a little research instead of taking at face value your own ignorant "nonsense."
It wasn't technically accurate. It was nonsense. Reaffirming nonsense deserves to get it called exactly what I said it was, B.S. You didn't research it. You just passed on hearsay and then want to condemn others for not "doing a little research." On top of it, the chaser is you call the clear ability to read the state Constitution, "ignorant nonsense."
Sorry Sal, but I don't dig those who get their news at 6:00 pm and have no details on hand. On top of it if you want to complain that others are "ignorant" because we read instead of having the news spoon fed to us, you had better prepare for having yourself corrected often.
Actually, no. What they were making an issue of was the apparent inconsistency of the remedies provided in Article II and Article V of the California.
In Article V section 10 it says:
Quote:
SEC. 10. The Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor when a
vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.
The determination of what constitutes a vacancy is the issue up for debate.
Then back to ART II Section 15(a)
Quote:
An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
The issue here would be what does it mean by "if appropriate." Traditionally it is understood to mean that if the position is an elected one, there would be an election. Ie: Appointed positions need not hold elections. This however has never been tested by the courts, and you very well could make an arguement based on the letter of the law.
Since the Lt. Gov is the arbitor here, accordingly he would have the "authority" to determine whether or not there would be a sucessor election.
The seeming conflict is that you have two apparent remedies for a vacancy in the office of the Governor. One (Ar V S10) says that in ANY case of vacancy the Lt. Gov steps in. The other indicates that in some instances there could be an election.
So, technically, Salinger is correct. Would it hold up in court? I don't know, I've made weaker arguments and won. I've also had more cut-and-dry cases that I lost.
I don't know why you're making such a big deal however. It's not like Salinger was argueing for Bustamante, it seems he was just pointing out that they could have made the arguement.
Remember, you and I have no ability to interpret this as a matter of law. We can guess, and presume, but only the court can interpret it for law. And it's all moot anyway since the CA Supreme Court has decided to stay out of it.
By the way, where did you get your law degree? I got mine at a little place in New York.
Sure, some things here are great. San Diego, Cupertino (), Lake Tahoe(which is half Nevada), Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk. It just continues to get worse. Maybe it's just me, but I wish I still lived in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Well, that's the point, in a roundabout way. The lunacy of the recall system allows any number of things to happen. All you need is money and an army of petition workers to recall just about anyone for just about anything. I'm sure it can be a great tool for democracy, but it can also be a tool for naked power grabs by millionaire congressmen and their respective political parties.
Does anyone know if Issa is connected to Rove at all?
Actually, no. What they were making an issue of was the apparent inconsistency of the remedies provided in Article II and Article V of the California.
In Article V section 10 it says:
The determination of what constitutes a vacancy is the issue up for debate.
Then back to ART II Section 15(a)
The issue here would be what does it mean by "if appropriate." Traditionally it is understood to mean that if the position is an elected one, there would be an election. Ie: Appointed positions need not hold elections. This however has never been tested by the courts, and you very well could make an arguement based on the letter of the law.
Since the Lt. Gov is the arbitor here, accordingly he would have the "authority" to determine whether or not there would be a sucessor election.
The seeming conflict is that you have two apparent remedies for a vacancy in the office of the Governor. One (Ar V S10) says that in ANY case of vacancy the Lt. Gov steps in. The other indicates that in some instances there could be an election.
So, technically, Salinger is correct. Would it hold up in court? I don't know, I've made weaker arguments and won. I've also had more cut-and-dry cases that I lost.
I don't know why you're making such a big deal however. It's not like Salinger was argueing for Bustamante, it seems he was just pointing out that they could have made the arguement.
Remember, you and I have no ability to interpret this as a matter of law. We can guess, and presume, but only the court can interpret it for law. And it's all moot anyway since the CA Supreme Court has decided to stay out of it.
By the way, where did you get your law degree? I got mine at a little place in New York.
Technically he is not correct and neither are you. Only lawyers would attempt to take dictionary definitions of words and tell the general populace that they do not mean what they are understood to mean.
Vacancy does not = REMOVED. As for your second point, you make my case for me. Traditionally it has been understood to mean exactly what everyone understands it to mean. Only someone who wishes to tell us words have different definitions in certain political circumstances would believe different. It wasn't tested in court because it would be thrown out of court since it is nonsense. Likewise not only judges can understand and clarify laws. They are just the ones who's understanding is enforced. The landscape is littered with judges who have had appeals overturned because they claimed a law meant something that it didn't.
So technically you still are wrong.
As for you law degree and where you got it. If it doesn't give you the ability to understand standard definitions because you are too busy twisting the law, then I would question your education or at minimum your law ethics class. Your type of reasoning is why I have a 5-6 page rental agreement stating things like "I" can be understood to be "we, he or she," and why the agreements I have to sign to purchase my houses are over 10 pages long. Why? Well because thanks to "reasoning" like yours, we need 8 pages to discuss what the word "disclosure" means regarding home sales and purchases.
Okay Nick, you win. You're smarter than I am. I'll call you in November. I'm arguing my third case before the US Supreme Court and I'll probably need your help since my Columbia degree is apparently not enough to read legal documents.
Okay Nick, you win. You're smarter than I am. I'll call you in November. I'm arguing my third case before the US Supreme Court and I'll probably need your help since my Columbia degree is apparently not enough to read legal documents.
Thanks for the help.
You're welcome to call me in November, especially if you want to win that case.
As for your degree and where you earned it. I could honestly care less. Why don't you tell me your GPA next?
And of course you can't read and understand legal documents. Remember, only judges can do that.
Comments
Originally posted by Salinger
It's even simpler than that... there is "technically" no need for the replacement vote since according to the constitution of CA, if Davis is removed, the LT Gov would automatically become governor should he decide the election not be needed. He's already decided against that option
Please don't repeat B.S. spin that was floated for a day and then disregarded as the nonsense it is.
Yes the Lt. Gov. announces he is running if he could just Davis' place.
Nick
Please don't repeat B.S. spin that was floated for a day and then disregarded as the nonsense it is.
Excuse me?
What the hell are you talking about?
Someone made the statement that the easiest out would be for Davis to simply resign, giving the job to Bustamante. I pointed out that if they had plans to give the job to him, they would be pursuing a favorable interpretation of the California Constitution. It is in the constitution by the way.
If they wanted Bustamante to take the job as a fail safe, I think they would have gone that route.
I don't appreciate you talking down to me. Insinuating that my comments are nonsense and "B.S" is ignorant and disrespectful.
At least pretend like you're an intelligent individual when you respond. I don't know if you noticed, but I continually referred to the efforts in the third person ie: they. The indication there would be that if you were to make an assumption it would be that perhaps I don't agree with "their" interpretation even while pointing out that it is "technically" accurate.
In the future, it would be better if you would read carefully and take facts in context. Of course you could always do a little research instead of taking at face value your own ignorant "nonsense."
Yes the Lt. Gov. announces he is running if he could just Davis' place.
Originally posted by Salinger
furthermore, what the f*$# does this sentance mean? Does it even qualify as a sentance? Do you proofread before you post?
Hel know I dont profred be4 I post.
Sorry about that.
I was saying that why would ol Cruz announce himself as a candidate if he could simply call for just the recall vote and take the seat himself?
He can't. You said that there was "technically no need for the replacement vote" according to the state constitution.
You are "technically" 100% wrong. The thing that made you believe this is the Democrats floated this as a nonsense talking point for about two days. Some clueless, lazy news organizations gave it some credibility so the talking heads
could keep talking for another hour.
I'll refer you to this little document I like to call, The California State Constitution.
Constitution
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.
The issue they were trying to make hay as it were was this part...
SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively.
So the Governor cannot run his own recall. However the issue is quite clear. There is a replacement candidate when the question of recalling has been answered.
Lastly this...
At least pretend like you're an intelligent individual when you respond. I don't know if you noticed, but I continually referred to the efforts in the third person ie: they. The indication there would be that if you were to make an assumption it would be that perhaps I don't agree with "their" interpretation even while pointing out that it is "technically" accurate.
In the future, it would be better if you would read carefully and take facts in context. Of course you could always do a little research instead of taking at face value your own ignorant "nonsense."
It wasn't technically accurate. It was nonsense. Reaffirming nonsense deserves to get it called exactly what I said it was, B.S. You didn't research it. You just passed on hearsay and then want to condemn others for not "doing a little research." On top of it, the chaser is you call the clear ability to read the state Constitution, "ignorant nonsense."
Sorry Sal, but I don't dig those who get their news at 6:00 pm and have no details on hand. On top of it if you want to complain that others are "ignorant" because we read instead of having the news spoon fed to us, you had better prepare for having yourself corrected often.
Nick
In Article V section 10 it says:
SEC. 10. The Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor when a
vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.
The determination of what constitutes a vacancy is the issue up for debate.
Then back to ART II Section 15(a)
An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
The issue here would be what does it mean by "if appropriate." Traditionally it is understood to mean that if the position is an elected one, there would be an election. Ie: Appointed positions need not hold elections. This however has never been tested by the courts, and you very well could make an arguement based on the letter of the law.
Since the Lt. Gov is the arbitor here, accordingly he would have the "authority" to determine whether or not there would be a sucessor election.
The seeming conflict is that you have two apparent remedies for a vacancy in the office of the Governor. One (Ar V S10) says that in ANY case of vacancy the Lt. Gov steps in. The other indicates that in some instances there could be an election.
So, technically, Salinger is correct. Would it hold up in court? I don't know, I've made weaker arguments and won. I've also had more cut-and-dry cases that I lost.
I don't know why you're making such a big deal however. It's not like Salinger was argueing for Bustamante, it seems he was just pointing out that they could have made the arguement.
Remember, you and I have no ability to interpret this as a matter of law. We can guess, and presume, but only the court can interpret it for law. And it's all moot anyway since the CA Supreme Court has decided to stay out of it.
By the way, where did you get your law degree? I got mine at a little place in New York.
Sure, some things here are great. San Diego, Cupertino (
Originally posted by Salinger
furthermore, what the f*$# does this sentance mean? Does it even qualify as a sentance? Do you proofread before you post?
'Sentence.' With an 'e'.
Originally posted by Salinger
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
Well, that's the point, in a roundabout way. The lunacy of the recall system allows any number of things to happen. All you need is money and an army of petition workers to recall just about anyone for just about anything. I'm sure it can be a great tool for democracy, but it can also be a tool for naked power grabs by millionaire congressmen and their respective political parties.
Does anyone know if Issa is connected to Rove at all?
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, no. What they were making an issue of was the apparent inconsistency of the remedies provided in Article II and Article V of the California.
In Article V section 10 it says:
The determination of what constitutes a vacancy is the issue up for debate.
Then back to ART II Section 15(a)
The issue here would be what does it mean by "if appropriate." Traditionally it is understood to mean that if the position is an elected one, there would be an election. Ie: Appointed positions need not hold elections. This however has never been tested by the courts, and you very well could make an arguement based on the letter of the law.
Since the Lt. Gov is the arbitor here, accordingly he would have the "authority" to determine whether or not there would be a sucessor election.
The seeming conflict is that you have two apparent remedies for a vacancy in the office of the Governor. One (Ar V S10) says that in ANY case of vacancy the Lt. Gov steps in. The other indicates that in some instances there could be an election.
So, technically, Salinger is correct. Would it hold up in court? I don't know, I've made weaker arguments and won. I've also had more cut-and-dry cases that I lost.
I don't know why you're making such a big deal however. It's not like Salinger was argueing for Bustamante, it seems he was just pointing out that they could have made the arguement.
Remember, you and I have no ability to interpret this as a matter of law. We can guess, and presume, but only the court can interpret it for law. And it's all moot anyway since the CA Supreme Court has decided to stay out of it.
By the way, where did you get your law degree? I got mine at a little place in New York.
Technically he is not correct and neither are you. Only lawyers would attempt to take dictionary definitions of words and tell the general populace that they do not mean what they are understood to mean.
Vacancy does not = REMOVED. As for your second point, you make my case for me. Traditionally it has been understood to mean exactly what everyone understands it to mean. Only someone who wishes to tell us words have different definitions in certain political circumstances would believe different. It wasn't tested in court because it would be thrown out of court since it is nonsense. Likewise not only judges can understand and clarify laws. They are just the ones who's understanding is enforced. The landscape is littered with judges who have had appeals overturned because they claimed a law meant something that it didn't.
So technically you still are wrong.
As for you law degree and where you got it. If it doesn't give you the ability to understand standard definitions because you are too busy twisting the law, then I would question your education or at minimum your law ethics class. Your type of reasoning is why I have a 5-6 page rental agreement stating things like "I" can be understood to be "we, he or she," and why the agreements I have to sign to purchase my houses are over 10 pages long. Why? Well because thanks to "reasoning" like yours, we need 8 pages to discuss what the word "disclosure" means regarding home sales and purchases.
Get over it.
Nick
Originally posted by Shawn
Does anyone know if Issa is connected to Rove at all?
I don't know, but I'm guessing Issa got a little, uh, message from someone in the White House about not running once the Governator got in.
Thanks for the help.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Okay Nick, you win. You're smarter than I am. I'll call you in November. I'm arguing my third case before the US Supreme Court and I'll probably need your help since my Columbia degree is apparently not enough to read legal documents.
Thanks for the help.
You're welcome to call me in November, especially if you want to win that case.
As for your degree and where you earned it. I could honestly care less. Why don't you tell me your GPA next?
And of course you can't read and understand legal documents. Remember, only judges can do that.
Nick