Matador
Well-known member
I'm happy to see you are starting to reject originalism.
Insurrection and running for office
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Everyone gets that the Founding Fathers didn't want the President elected by popular vote. They also get that 65% of Americans today do want it. No mind reading necessary.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Nothing catastrophic occurred as a result of those elections. Like most results it was a mixed bag. Among the good would the Sherman Antitrust Act. Or maybe you think it was not "fine" because Republicans won or something. But "the parties were switched" back then or something.
"The votes" are cast in the electoral college. We are the United States of America and the states effectively elect POTUS with a mostly proportional vote (# of allocated House members + 2 Senators). It is a simple and elegant way to balance proportionality and the individual states while avoiding the tyranny of the simple majority. Interestingly I don't hear any of you whining about the UN which has a completely non-proportional vote (and whose "representatives" are not elected at all). Same with screwed up proportionality in the EU.
Yet the neo-left want to also reduce or remove those same rights you mention in addition to having "majority rule" which is a recipe for disaster. We don't have anything approaching "simple minority rule," whatever that is. One solution that about 5M American citizens have taken in the last decade is to move to a state that matches your beliefs wrt government. As a result we see a huge outflow of people from big gov/high tax blue states (CA, NY, IL, NJ) to smaller gov/low tax states like FL, SC, TX, NC, GA, etc.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-biggest-mass-migrations-american-113000683.html
Your proposed solutions require Amendments to the Constitution. Go ahead. We have the mechanism in place and it has been used in the past.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
So, again, tyranny of the majority. And what poll shows those results? It is clear that there are an awful lot of Americans who have not had meaningful civics and US Gov education. That is on display in the Brewery regularly.
No, but I am not a supreme court jurist either.I'm happy to see you are starting to reject originalism.
Recently I read an interesting perspective on originalism. The concept was to weigh the original language much more heavily because of how difficult it was to get it approved (passing amendments is very difficult) vs. a simple majority of some later panel of judges.
JR
pucho812
Well-known member
I have seen the migration of big blue states into my home state of Texas. They gather in specific spots like Austin. This is because lord knows they wouldn’t last out in the sticks, the part of the state where I am from. It’s interesting to watch them try and make Tx exactly like the state they moved from. They don’t understand that their decisions which changed their state is what caused them to move to Texas. Don’t California my Texas is a running theme across the state.
With a 2/3 (actually 66% not 65%) majority of both houses of congress you could get an amendment "proposed", or a constitutional convention where 2/3 of the states approve it but so far no amendments were ever done that way. Constitutional Amendment Process
Then it needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
I don't believe you have enough votes....
Did I mention that amending the constitution is really hard?
That is one reason why originalist language is valued so strongly.
JR
Last edited:
john12ax7
Well-known member
No amendment needed to implement as founders intended...
But then isn't is still the opinion of a simple majority of judges? If the Constitution didn't require interpretation in the first place, we wouldn't have all that much need for judges' opinions. Seems to me what you (or the article you read) are proposing is simply that the only judges whose opinions matter at all are the opinions of the ones sitting on the bench right this moment. How convenient for you & the author that the court right now is ultraconservative. The reasoning here is extremely unsound, but it's really just excusing an ultraconservative court's ignoring of precedent, facts, and good jurisprudence to achieve what their sponsors desires--why would I expect anything well-reasoned?
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
"California leads the way." Why don't they start apportioning electors by congressional district (and the other two by some other mechanism)? Huh.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
No law written in any human language will be 100% unambiguous, nevermind a collection of hundreds, thousands, and ever more overlapping and conflicting laws. Smaller gov is better. Less power and fewer laws given to gov helps mitigate this very real problem.
Blah blah. Leftwing talking points with no logical basis.
Correct. Just like for a long time women were denied suffrage because there weren't enough votes. Turns out "really hard" doesn't preclude "possible" or "morally right".I don't believe you have enough votes....
Did I mention that amending the constitution is really hard?
false equivalency fallacy....
If this is like "female suffrage" all you need to do is wait for the appropriate super majority to come around to your opinion.
Things change but it takes time, so be patient.
JR
john12ax7
Well-known member
It's important to consider the intent of the founders. It wasn't to avoid a popular vote for president, it was to avoid the people deciding altogether. The government is a represenative system where the people elect those supposedly more studied and thus better suited to make the best decisions on their behalf.
The decision for president is no different. The electoral college is essentially a temporarrily elected independent House and Senate type group, whose sole purpose is to get together and select the best qualified person for president, regardless of party, special interest, or other affiliation.
That is not at all the system in place now. The founders would be mortified by what it's become.
I just skimmed over the latest posts and find myself perturbed by the level of US egocentricism ,
Every democracy on the planet is under siege ,social media is being used to manipulate and divide , the smart phone is the biggest advance in mind control we've ever seen .
A dead heat in electioneering terms means were closer to civil war ,it also means its easier to rig an elections outcome.
The instantaneous nature of news media in the modern age could hardly have been contemplated by the founding fathers , so any rules put in place in the era of word of mouth are no longer applicable to the modern age , its just not fast enough to catch the zeitgiest .
Look at how corporations have abused their power over elected representatives .
The Irish constitution was written a little under 100 years ago , in the wake of all that came before , with the best of intention , its still hopelessly inadequate contending with the modern age , lick spit politicians make inside deals with the likes of FB without any thought for the public good and theres no mechanism to hold them to account after they have left office .
We lost the greatest leader we never had here , anti state forces blew Michael Collins brains out JFK style in favour of the dour Eamon De Valera ,who offered the least fortunate up on a plate for medical experimentation within the institutions of the state for profit.
Does that ring any alarm bells ?
Every democracy on the planet is under siege ,social media is being used to manipulate and divide , the smart phone is the biggest advance in mind control we've ever seen .
A dead heat in electioneering terms means were closer to civil war ,it also means its easier to rig an elections outcome.
The instantaneous nature of news media in the modern age could hardly have been contemplated by the founding fathers , so any rules put in place in the era of word of mouth are no longer applicable to the modern age , its just not fast enough to catch the zeitgiest .
Look at how corporations have abused their power over elected representatives .
The Irish constitution was written a little under 100 years ago , in the wake of all that came before , with the best of intention , its still hopelessly inadequate contending with the modern age , lick spit politicians make inside deals with the likes of FB without any thought for the public good and theres no mechanism to hold them to account after they have left office .
We lost the greatest leader we never had here , anti state forces blew Michael Collins brains out JFK style in favour of the dour Eamon De Valera ,who offered the least fortunate up on a plate for medical experimentation within the institutions of the state for profit.
Does that ring any alarm bells ?
I am not a fan of the 17th amendment for direct election of Senators, that IMO shifted power from states to the federal government.
JR
