 |
Hmm. That sure didn't sound like a celebration of the other guy's views. Very disappointing.
Quote:
This is the argument of a child.
Quote:
If you COULD rebut facts point by point, I'm sure you would do just that. Lacking that ability to rebut, you call it "wasting time". That's exactly how small children argue.
Quote:
But you don't do that. The naivete is all yours.
I agree. Then how do you explain the 2016 election?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Constitution can be, and has been, amended.Quote:
going solely by the popular will is democratic but also anti-Constitutional.
By eliminating Federal office holders from being electors, the FF intended the electors to be free agents, their voting based on their high integrity and intelligence. Over time, the states used their power of selecting electors to be partisan or based on the popular vote. Either way, the electors were no longer free agents doing what was best fort the nation. Now the electoral college simply duplicates the popular vote by state. So what's the point of the Electoral College?Quote:
The very fact that the states have decided to appoint their electors by elections is a testament to the Federal system . The states decided how electors are appointed
California has almost 40,000,000 population. Wyoming has less than 600,000. Both states have an equal number of electoral college votes that are based on number of senators. Two votes apiece. Eliminating the Electoral College eliminates the disparity. I am open to having my view changed.Quote:
There is also a move to abolish or to reduce the power of the Senate . So much for protecting the interests of small states .
Electoral college votes are based on the number of reps a state has in the House in addition to the number of senators. Thus Cali has 55 while Wyoming has...3. So not real sure what disparity is being looked at.
Trump won despite the attempt by Evita and the Obama Adm to steal it .Quote:
I agree. Then how do you explain the 2016 election?
go for it . I have some ideas that would make good amendments . Of course they will not happen the more traditional way with them being initiated by the swamp 'big state' Congress that has a stake in the status quo . Good thing the framers saw that eventually there could be a need for a convention of the states to introduce and pass amendments .Quote:
The Constitution can be, and has been, amended.
The electors are appointed by the states to do the state's bidding as expressed in the laws of the states Every elector is certified by the state before the college meets in mid December after the election. Stolen or otherwise ,Trump officially lost when the electors met in December . Electors are NOT free agents and never have been . In rare cases an elector goes off the reservation and becomes "faithless" . Faithless electors can be punished by the states depending on their laws . SCOTUS already decided in 'Chiafalo v Washington' that states laws that punish or replace faithless electors is constitutional .Quote:
Either way, the electors were no longer free agents doing what was best fort the nation.
Electors are proportional to a state's population (# of Congressional Reps and Senators )Wyoming and California do not have the same number of electors.Quote:
California has almost 40,000,000 population. Wyoming has less than 600,000. Both states have an equal number of electoral college votes that are based on number of senators. Two votes apiece. Eliminating the Electoral College eliminates the disparity. I am open to having my view changed.
I did not say that the electoral college protects the small state . I said the Senate with every state having 2 Senators does. Not as much as it used to before the Federal system began to be diluted with the 17th amendment .
Lol. I'd ask your for facts to support that, but I now know facts are meaningless to you unless they come from QANON.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
go for it.Quote:
go for it . I have some ideas that would make good amendments .
That was the original intention.Quote:
Electors are NOT free agents and never have been
Justice Robert H. Jackson - "No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.
and
However, when electors were pledged to vote for a specific candidate, the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became, as Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."
According to Hamilton, writing in 1788, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."Hamilton stated that the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector in violation of the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates.
Yes. I'm aware of that. I didn't think it was necessary to write that. I was comparing the senatorial disparity. I should have phrased it more clearly.Quote:
Electors are proportional to a state's population (# of Congressional Reps and Senators )Wyoming and California do not have the same number of electors.
That was my point. Leave the senate as is, but amend or eliminate the Electoral College.Quote:
I said the Senate with every state having 2 Senators does (protects the small state).
Justice Jackson's remarks were written in the dissenting opinion. But writing for the Court, Justice Reed said this. "“We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention. Where a state authorizes a party to choose its nominees for elector in a party primary and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, we see no federal constitutional objection to the requirement of this pledge."
He also wrote, “It is true that the Amendment says the electors shall vote by ballot. But it is also true that the Amendment does not prohibit an elector’s announcing his choice beforehand, pledging himself. The suggestion that in the early elections candidates for electors— contemporaries of the Founders—would have hesitated, because of constitutional limitations, to pledge themselves to support party nominees in the event of their selection as electors is impossible to accept. History teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees. Experts in the history of government recognize the longstanding practice. Indeed, more than twenty states do not print the names of the candidates for electors on the general election ballot. Instead, in one form or another, they allow a vote for the presidential candidate of the national conventions to be counted as a vote for his party’s nominees for the electoral college. This long-continued practical interpretation of the constitutional propriety of an implied or oral pledge of his ballot by a candidate for elector as to his vote in the electoral college weighs heavily in considering the constitutionality of a pledge, such as the one here required, in the primary.”“However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional. A candidacy in the primary is a voluntary act of the applicant. He is not barred, discriminatorily, from participating but must comply with the rules of the party. Surely one may voluntarily assume obligations to vote for a certain candidate. The state offers him opportunity to become a candidate for elector on his own terms, although he must file his declaration before the primary. Ala. Code, Tit. 17, § 145. Even though the victory of an independent candidate for elector in Alabama cannot be anticipated, the state does offer the opportunity for the development of other strong political organizations where the need is felt for them by a sizable block of voters. Such parties may leave their electors to their own choice.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...ctoral-college
Justice Robert H. Jackson ? appointed in the Truman years .I'll raise you Article 2 Sec 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The word appoint confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination. " "Therefore, on reference to contemporaneous and subsequent action under the clause, we should expect to find, as we do, that various modes of choosing the electors were pursued, as, by the legislature itself on joint ballot; by the legislature through a concurrent vote of the two houses; by vote of the people for a general ticket; by vote of the people in districts; by choice partly by the people voting in districts and partly by the legislature; by choice by the legislature from candidates voted for by the people in districts; and in other ways, as, notably, by North Carolina in 1792, and Tennessee in 1796 and 1800. No question was raised as to the power of the State to appoint, in any mode its legislature saw fit to adopt, and none that a single method, applicable without exception, must be pursued in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution. (McPherson v Blacker 1892)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The difficulties Jackson and Hamilton raised continue to exist. Hamilton considered Article 2 being violated by pre-pledged electors. I agree with Hamilton. We'll have to leave it at that.
Hamilton was also a monarchist who wanted an elected royal executive .His vision of a strong central government is what eventually evolved in the 20th century .Oh he made the case for the Consititution in his prolific authorship of most of the Federalist Papers . But at the convention he argued for what he called a “governor,” one with far reaching powers and a lifetime appointment as long as he remained in “good behavior.” (They skip that part in the play. )
Yes the debate we have is as old as the founding ,
I believe the American experiment in representative democracy is at crisis stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As an Independent and observer of both parties, it's pretty clear that the Republican Party has consistently put party over country. I first noticed this in the 90's when Clinton was impeached on foolish grounds re his personal sex life.
From McConnell's position on Merrit Garland to the present filibuster deadlock, it gets worse over time. I won't go into further details. They're well-known to anyone paying attention.
The main culprit is the Repub party, but I won't deny the Dems are equally capable of bad governance when the shoe fits.
Has Churchill's famous statement proven to be correct? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"?
A parliamentary form has the advantage of reducing the personality factor of a presidential candidate in favor of forcing the voter to consider the issues as represented by the party. However, there are disadvantages also.
The level of freedom we are able to exercise has produced the most powerful economy on the planet, and yet there is complaining, complaining, complaining. It's perplexing. The lib dems are the party of 900K dead babies every year. Nuff said.
That should make you happy! -- the lib dems are erasing themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It makes you happy. It distresses me.
You're jumping up and down with joy that the dems are so stoopid to kill themselves, whereas the repubs refuse abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Unsurprisingly, that makes no sense whatsoever other than your admission that a procedure you refuse to stand against is "killing". What a confession. The truth usually comes out eventually.
Wasn't my admission. I was quoting you. 'Bye.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have no idea what QANON does or says . I have presented the facts about the 2016 election many times . It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election .Quote:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...post-right.png
Trump won despite the attempt by Evita and the Obama Adm to steal it .
Lol. I'd ask your for facts to support that, but I now know facts are meaningless to you unless they come from QANON.
It is also indisputable that the 20202 election was rigged to favor Quid's victory by a
"well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” " Time Mag detailed that in a post election summary . These powerful elites, funded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, embeded left-wing activists into election offices to assist the Dems with their 'get-out-the-vote' efforts ,change election rules in the middle of the campaign , and the Dems’ push for mail-in balloting. Zuckerberg's behind the scenes efforts were not just to influence the outcome but was in fact an effort to put people from Quid's camp or who favored his campaign into state government positions that administer the vote . Covid was their pretext justification for the administrative rigging ,
The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | Time
There is nothing more dangerous for our future than what you have just described. The liberal takeover of both the news media and most universities is alarming. The Biden admin's recent announcement of a campaign of intimidation against parents who have the temerity to question school board policies by pointing out, for instance, that a school library has books promoting the sexual exploitation of boys by grown men is another step in the direction of a heavy handed central government.Quote:
"well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”
The evidence is so clear that only the intentionally blind still question it.Quote:
It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election .
You may remember QANON as the far right wacko outfit that claimed Clinton ran a cannibalistic child-kidnapping ring out of a DC pizza shop. Only a Trump cultist could swallow such a yarn.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You have NOT "presented facts many times about the 2016 election". If you had, a simple link would have been provided. What you did was state your OPINION which was inaccurate.
You further state/claim that "It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election." Of course, it's debatable. Only the fringe right claims it's not debatable. Here's an excellent link describing the events from back then. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...it-to-the-fbi/ Unfortunately, it's a fact-checker so I presume you will not bother reading it.
Indisputable? You must be kidding! I had no idea you were part of the Trump BS about the election being rigged. And here I thought these exchanges might provide some light on our respective positions but your belief in something so untrue - having been disproven by 60+ courts, the SC, Trump's followers like AG Barr, McConnell, unhinged lawyers like Giulianni and Powell, and many, many audits and recounts - that it staggers the imagination.Quote:
It is also indisputable that the 20202 election was rigged to favor Quid's victory
That quote, that you claim was "detailed" by a post-election summary, is so misleading that you again surprise me. Anyone who reads your link, as I did, will discover that the Time article criticizes Trump for all his dissembling and lying - hardly supporting his false contention that the election was stolen.Quote:
..."well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” " Time Mag detailed that in a post election summary
What the article accomplishes is a detailed analysis how the Democrats planned to defend a fair and honest election from Trump's pre-election announcement that he wouldn't accept a defeat since that was proof of Democratic rigging. We all know how Trump illegally tried to reverse the vote counts in Georgia and elsewhere. Without planning to ensure a fair election, Trump might have succeeded.
No comment.Quote:
Covid was their pretext justification for the administrative rigging
The link below is included here for anyone interested.
The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | Time[/QUOTE]
yeah the author puts lipstick on a pig . I stand by my interpretation. She unconvincingly whitewashes what the cabal did ;calling what they did “fortifying” instead of rigging . word play . What she confirmed was that the election was neither free nor fair . Many of the changes made to state laws were unconstitutional ;especially in the key battle ground state of Pennsylvania
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:22 AM. |