foreign monitors...

inspecting our elections...is this not the ultimate slap in the face? Are we unable to form a non-partisan group to watch over our own elections?

what the hell are we, afghanistan?

 

I don't think it's a slap in the face. I WOULD be worried about how one can find truely impartial observers for this specific election. I want Bush to lose, but I don't want him to win unfairly either.

 

so we get a group who overlooks elections in place like slovenia and krygyzstan?

Americans can do that job. Lets not outsource that too.

 

What's wrong with that (assuming the group is impartial)?

 

Hmmm... Perhaps a special organization could be created, call it Global Democracy or something. It could be run by elected representatives from every member nation, and the organization could monitor elections in every country to ensure they adhere to rules guaranteeing a fair election.

I would be unhappy and worried if bush wins fairly, but a forged election would probably hurt our country more.

 

Assuming they are really unbiased. What organisation would run it? The only two impartial election observer groups that I can think of are either with the U.N. or Amnesty, and both are staunchly anti-Bush.

I guess we can't have Jimmy Carter help us out. . .

 

because the group is designed for new democracies that are not stable and where there is high corruption, not for the oldest modern democracy.


Are we to admit that we can't even run our own proper elections?

We can do this ourselves.

 

I don't think we can, and i think that our democracy is flawed, the process does not serve as a good model for newer systems.

 

But there IS evidence of possible corruption - I live in Florida where there were people who were ripped off either by accident or by mistake. It's fishy. As long as the group was completely fair in their observation, I would be pleased to know the world was looking out for us.

 

so you admit, america is unable to run her own elections? With everything america has done over the past 228+ years, we are incapable of running an election? Thats a sick joke.

edit: we can form our own non-partisan group to watch over this.

seamonster: our system of check and balances is a great example to all, but our dual party system works well for us, whereas other more divided regions of the world it would not because of the makeup of hte country calls for more than 2 parties to prevent civil war.

 

Sure we can run our own elections. I never suggested other countries run our elections. I suggested impartial election observers, aka people who make sure things go fairly and smoothly.

By the way, does anyone know for sure weather or not this will actually happen?

 

Wow!

I never knew we had so many gullible people in these forums who buy into this globalist system that is constantly being pushed on us. How sad.

We don't need globalist entities involved in our elections, because they are no less capable of corruption than the US government itself is. Actually, this has been proven.

Hello, people.... they have their own agenda, in concert with our own government!

Do some research, please. Inform yourselves to the corruption you are all so apparently blind to.

At least it's good to know that I am one of the few people in this forum who actually gives a shit about the Constitution. Bringing in other countries to monitor this sovereign nation's elections is completely unconstitutional and just downright WRONG.

I am completely against the UN. I am completely against NATO. I am against ALL of these corrupt globalist organizations. They are all just as corrupt as our own government, so what good are they?

All the elites want to do is create a global government to which only THEY will benefit. This sort of nonsense is only their way of conditioning gullible people -- such as some of the ones that have responded to this thread -- into accepting a global government.

We don't need outside entities "monitoring" our elections. We need a system that works. Perhaps if so many of you (this includes the majority of Americans) didn't blindly buy into the two-party system that controls and corrupts this country, we wouldn't have to worry about the elections being tampered with. You people are partly to blame for the problems in this country.

But, I can tell you that bringing in an outside organization to monitor our elections is not going to make matters any better, considering our elected officials are tied right in with these globalist organizations whom they serve, and vice-versa. They all have the same agenda -- both the globalists and our elected officials, who are also globalists themselves.

 

I live in floriduh and think this is a good idea

 

while i agree completely with you, what exactly makes it unconstitutional explicitly?

 

Does the Constitution say anything about involving foreign countries in our affairs, especially our elections?

Do you think our founding fathers would be in favor of something like this?

 

of course not, however, that doesnt make it unconstitutional.


I'm ashamed that we will have them monitoring our elections, its a horrible disgrace to this country. The founders WOULD be outraged, imo. I dont think they every foresaw anything like this ever happening and i cant think of anything specifically that would forebid this.

 

Well, yes it does.

Look, this is a sovereign nation. How is bringing in a global entity like the UN, to monitor our elections, NOT unconstitutional?

And anyone who follows the Constitution, or is at least somewhat libertarian in their political views -- such as myself -- would be TOTALLY against something like this.

I guarantee that if you were to ask any TRUE Libertarian or Constitutionalist what they thought about this, they would be completely against it.

So, if you don't think it's unconstitutional, maybe it would be easier for you to tell me how it is constitutional. If it's neither constitutional or unconstitutional, what is it?

 

wtf?

you're the one calling it unconstitutional...its not a defense to say "show me how it is".

What clause does it violate?

But here, i'm in a generous mood, so i'll answer your question

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land"


and here is a quote about the US entering into a treaty.

"OSCE members, including the United States, agreed in 1990 in Copenhagen to allow fellow members to observe elections in one another's countries," Mr. Kelly wrote. "Consistent with this commitment, the United States has already invited the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to observe the November 2, 2004, presidential elections."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040806-115723-1192r.htm


so the only way this can prove to be unconstitutional, is that the treaty was signed in violation of the constitution, which again, puts the ball in your court to prove its unconstitutional.

 

The US Constitution secured the United States as a sovereign nation. When you bring in outside organizations to monitor elections, that is not sovereignty -- simple as that.

 

Actually, the UN is not a foreign entity, as a member of the UN, the united states has a democratic say in what the UN does. The UN is not some independant organization that runs the world, it is an alliance governed by the leaders of it's member nations. As a member of an alliance, we are only required to honor the rules so far as we expect the other nations to honor the rules, it is simply a mutual agreement to get along and work together towards common goals.

Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit, or even discourage alliances. Isolation is not independance.