When there may be multiple laws and or rulings upon a subject such that the laws or rulings may be contradictory in intent it is up to the courts to work it out.
Really... ?
While to a point, I agree with you, and I see your point. Please explain to me (as if I was 2 years old), what is conflicting and/or of "contrary in intent" [the law, now, not the "results of the double-triple-whatever count"], of a law, that has been in existence and in practice for several years, that "certifies an election".
This law is NOT, like say... the abortion law (to pick an example), where the existing law and its preceding history has been controversial). I mean to say, electing representatives of the mor..... er, the people, has been in effect for several years.
The ONLY thing that is making this "convoluted" [and only because there is a whiner saying he did not like the initial count], is the g.d. egos of politicians who are ready to place all at stake for so they can say: "I am the president".
What about the absentee ballots? Surely such ballots would make this entire fandango moot as in all probability; these votes may give one of the candidates a clear lead.
There is an expression in Latin American countries that says:
"EL caldo sale mas caro que las albondigas"
[The gravy is becoming more expensive than the meatballs].
This charade is a perfect example of such saying.
Such is the beauty and such is the horror of our (United States of America) democratic society.
This is Caca de Toro you know why ? (and this coming from someone who has admired the USA for a long time) [me].
This country became GREAT, for other reasons. NOT because it was a collection of boy scouts and arguing lawyers. Thomas Jefferson made the greatest real estate deal in history [with the help of a corrupt leader]. In so doing, it allowed those who worked hard and conquered this territory the opportunity to grow. The entire country grew thanks to those who took risks and DEVELOPED what it was in a RAW state.
The trees did not yield wealth by themselves, or the mines, or the fields etc. It was the effort of the people that did it. At that time, there was little arguing. There was ACTION. Since then, the country continued to advance (also with great real estate deals --Also with the assistance of other corrupt leaders, namely, Generalisimo Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. This opened the entire west to the same productive people who strengthen further the already strong foundation of the country.
These people were builders. NOt arguers... they built, not stalled.
This has changed. Now this country is becoming a country of hyenas, that in spite of the developers, and industrialists, (i.e. the producers), who are still the leaders in their respective fields, they are now being "led" by the endlessly arguing lawyers and politicians, going around in circles putting everything at stake, regardless of its proportions!
The "wonders and horrors" of such democratic society as you described them need to be kept in perspective. Because it is reaching a point where such system is putting everything that has been achieved, at risk. So Democrazy as wonderful as it seems to be perceived, also has limits in terms of what it should put at stake.
I believe that common sense is many steps above democracy. Politicians lack common sense. This "process" proves it.
These parasites are bringing down what was earlier built. We just are not seeing it.
And it is in such chaos that a stability forms and endures that gives rise to a state that (for the most part) has full backing and trust of its citizens.
Yes, so far so good. But the patience of such citizens has a limit, further; the stability you mentioned is at stake. For one, there is, (so far), no leader in a nation increasingly divided in the issues that matter.
Whoever becomes the leader, has to unite the people and learn to negotiate a common ground.
The current choices are far from achieving such.
Is there enough wine to go around?
Absolutely !! Here, have a glass... will it be red or white ? |
