S
stevegravy
Guest
I would say yes especially for slapping some controls of a run away judiciary. But that is just me.Maybe an article 5 convention is the answer.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
What about the growing number of U.S. citizens living abroad? I was just reading that 400,000 some retirees alone live in countries like Germany, UK, Mexico, Canada, and Japan. Or do we just lump them into the CA, WA, and NY buckets with the other 6 million legitimate absentees and yell voter fraud if other states claim them?
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
The South wanted slaves counted completely. 3/5 is less than a whole.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It was my understanding that prior to this compromise being adopted, the understanding was that slaves would not count at all. So raising the effect of slaves from zero to 3/5 was definitely an increase in the influence of the slave states.
Z
zz912
Guest
Z
zz912
Guest
I’m failing to understand your point here. Is it somehow impossible to know which state these 400k are citizens of?
S
stevegravy
Guest
At the heart of all this cross talk is the idea that votes matter and voters are important and need to have their say in how the country is run.
Well here is a news flash for those of you who are having short term memory loss, the Supremes have declared your votes, state constitutions, and other popular plebiscites mean nothing if it stands in the way of something they want. Two words for you
Gay marriage
It lost nearly everywhere it appeared on a ballot but you got it anyway.
So tell me again of the importance of a plurality of votes.
Well here is a news flash for those of you who are having short term memory loss, the Supremes have declared your votes, state constitutions, and other popular plebiscites mean nothing if it stands in the way of something they want. Two words for you
Gay marriage
It lost nearly everywhere it appeared on a ballot but you got it anyway.
So tell me again of the importance of a plurality of votes.
O
oldcelt
Guest
The south wanted it both ways…hold them as property, but count them like citizens. Maybe PA should have demanded that horses were citizens. In any case, the 3/5 compromise is now moot. The same should be said for the EC. Both are anachronisms whose time has passed.
S
stevegravy
Guest
Well I disagree, with out the College we would have Clinton as president and that is a fate worse then Trump. Votes and voters are so over rated.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Neither is worthy of the position, IMO. That may be the saddest thing to me…that the choices were so abysmal all around.
T
tomarin
Guest
I think that will depend on how much chaos and tumult he causes once he’s in office. I hope that he will settle in and make wise choices, but constantly churning chaos and tumult wouldn’t surprise me either, since he seems to revel in that.
Of course, his supporters believe that all chaos and disruption is good by definition, but I’ve never been persuaded of the logic of that.
S
stevegravy
Guest
Agreed.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It’s not called Supreme for nothing.
S
stevegravy
Guest
Because they think they are God?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Is there such a thing as citizen of a state?
I’m sure their SS checks come from the feds. They don’t get Medicare.
H
hydin
Guest
One needs to step back and see how the Founding Fathers viewed the Federal Government. Even in Lincoln’s time the President had little power compared to the states (check on South Carolina’s reaction to Lincoln setting Thanksgiving as a Holiday - which he could ONLY do in the territories and Washington DC…) The Senate’s purpose until 1918 or 17 was to represent the States interest, not the citizens in general. States decided how to select Senators and no procedure was given for them to follow. If you would like to see the magnitude of this change google federal spending and a chart from 1900 to date. Once the States (Shamed by the Democrats for not giving the people the right to select their Senators) gave up these 2 seats (States seen as equals in the senate so the smallest had equal voice as the largest (population shifts have changed the make up of the electorate in each state over time too) Can you imagine how things would be different if the States kept those seats and thus the veto power over the House of Representatives (see that name makes sense when in context - now both houses are representative of the people.) this is also why Senate rules demand 60 votes to close debate not 51. (OK Reid suspended that rule for Obama care but should not have) The intent was that all STATES be heard before a vote in the senate.
The States wished to limit the Federal Government to doing those things only they could do… Insure states allowed free trade. managed resources that passed through many states such as rivers, and the key reason - protection - an army that would protect all states equally and had the rights to go into a State and fight without permission. Laws were also managed so no state could place tariffs on other states or restrict access. Literally the Federal Government was designed to be an overseer in the context of supplying services, protection and laws that had no state boundaries. It protected interstate commerce and the free movement of people too.
Do you know that the United States Constitution does not give you the right to vote for President? Given the above history maybe you can see how the election of a President is really 51 separate elections not one big election. The Constitution gives each state the right to determine who the electors are that represent the States votes for President. If the legislature of a state the power decide who that states electoral votes would go to he could be the only one voting. Nothing prevents that now… Federal election laws depend on the states first deciding to have elections then if they choose to, they can and can’t do certain things. Federal Governments only power on elections is to determine the day of votes, if taken and when states electors vote (and the procedure for recording such votes.
Just because a constitutional amendment was passed granting the people the right to select Senators does not mean we change the Constitution for President. Another constitutional amendment would need to be passed.
The Constitutional Republic which we live in also prevents dramatic swings in public opinion from impacting the long term (and usually short term too) swings from impacting our Nation. In the last few years activist judges on the supreme court have cause those swings by making law instead of sending it back to the legislature to clean up or rewrite to address an issue in the news.
The Founding Fathers were brilliant. Even when painfully slow change has come to our country when needed. When it came, because of the built in delays in the Constitution, it was not quickly drawn up and later patched. Slow and steady has kept our nation intact through many conflicts that threatened it.
Bottom line = NO national election was held. The individual states held elections on the day Congress has put forth… or earlier. 51 separate elections were held to elect the states delegates to the Electoral College. So all the popular vote talk is interesting but unimportant. Would Trump avoid California, NY and Miami if were a popular vote? NO. You can’t look at the popular vote and draw any conclusions based on fact. None. How many democrats stayed home because their vote was not going to count given one candidates lead in their state? Without every citizen knowing that their vote would be counted leading up to one national election many more would have voted… so there is no way to guess what the result may have been.
.
The States wished to limit the Federal Government to doing those things only they could do… Insure states allowed free trade. managed resources that passed through many states such as rivers, and the key reason - protection - an army that would protect all states equally and had the rights to go into a State and fight without permission. Laws were also managed so no state could place tariffs on other states or restrict access. Literally the Federal Government was designed to be an overseer in the context of supplying services, protection and laws that had no state boundaries. It protected interstate commerce and the free movement of people too.
Do you know that the United States Constitution does not give you the right to vote for President? Given the above history maybe you can see how the election of a President is really 51 separate elections not one big election. The Constitution gives each state the right to determine who the electors are that represent the States votes for President. If the legislature of a state the power decide who that states electoral votes would go to he could be the only one voting. Nothing prevents that now… Federal election laws depend on the states first deciding to have elections then if they choose to, they can and can’t do certain things. Federal Governments only power on elections is to determine the day of votes, if taken and when states electors vote (and the procedure for recording such votes.
Just because a constitutional amendment was passed granting the people the right to select Senators does not mean we change the Constitution for President. Another constitutional amendment would need to be passed.
The Constitutional Republic which we live in also prevents dramatic swings in public opinion from impacting the long term (and usually short term too) swings from impacting our Nation. In the last few years activist judges on the supreme court have cause those swings by making law instead of sending it back to the legislature to clean up or rewrite to address an issue in the news.
The Founding Fathers were brilliant. Even when painfully slow change has come to our country when needed. When it came, because of the built in delays in the Constitution, it was not quickly drawn up and later patched. Slow and steady has kept our nation intact through many conflicts that threatened it.
Bottom line = NO national election was held. The individual states held elections on the day Congress has put forth… or earlier. 51 separate elections were held to elect the states delegates to the Electoral College. So all the popular vote talk is interesting but unimportant. Would Trump avoid California, NY and Miami if were a popular vote? NO. You can’t look at the popular vote and draw any conclusions based on fact. None. How many democrats stayed home because their vote was not going to count given one candidates lead in their state? Without every citizen knowing that their vote would be counted leading up to one national election many more would have voted… so there is no way to guess what the result may have been.
.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Clinton was able to build on her lead from the 7 million or so absentee votes. The question would be whether other countries would permit US campaigning within their borders. I’m guessing for the most part not.
Z
zz912
Guest
Yes.
R
RCinMT
Guest
On the contrary, the electoral college is more important now than ever. The desires of a large concentrations of citizens in small spaces (be it cities or states) is a danger in terms of imposing their desires on the entirety of the rest of the nation.
That being said, this is an excellent opportunity for democrats to embrace Federalism, which is how the country was meant to be run. Return the power to the states and if you live in California, don’t worry about Texas or Kentucky or Kansas. If you live in LA, don’t worry about San Diego, etc. Power should be devolved to the lowest possible level where it can be reasonably exercised.
That said, there is a marginally better chance that Trump will nominate constitutional originalists. That’s something to hope for
- Status