Taxation Representation, Civics Primer?

[shabtek]

A bit reductive, but the electoral college issue veer that our (big tech?) moderator stymied deserves further revue:

if X-million taxpaying voters will is not done due to electoral college algorithm than is their representation entact?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Your duly elected House members control the purse already. They are directly elected and the allocation of representatives is directly proportional to population. Taxation is not controlled by the Executive branch.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

 

[JohnRoberts]

A bit reductive, but the electoral college issue veer that our (big tech?) moderator stymied deserves further revue:

huh? I stopped the political blather corrupting a thread that should mainly have useful (?) health information. Herding cats on the internet is difficult and sometimes it takes blunt actions to get their attention.

if X-million taxpaying voters will is not done due to electoral college algorithm than is their representation entact?

I used to joke that ex-President Trump was forcing people to learn civics, now it appears the democrats are.

Taxation and vote representation are not strictly linked. Back in the distant past leaders wanted only land owners to have a say in government. There is a logic to that, but we have progressed well beyond that allowing all legal citizens to vote. A modern equivalent to that land ownership requirement might be only allowing taxpayers to vote. Ironically perhaps we have some illegal (economic) migrants paying taxes without the right to vote.

The elephant in the room surrounding the intentional open border policy is the supposition that they will be creating a new future voting block that will vote with the left. It is unclear that this is a given. Coincidentally criminal organizations are making obscene amounts of money from human trafficking and drug smuggling across the open border. Not to mention the number of innocent deaths caused by fentanyl poisoning, mischaracterized as drug overdoses.

I am probably not explaining the electoral college system to your satisfaction, in my judgement it is mainly about diffusing the political power of populous states. Even back hundreds of years ago our founders recognized the risk of simple majority rule (tyranny of the masses). Back then it was protecting rural regions from NY and MA, now we can add protection from CA also, but it is the same dynamic (IMO).

JR

 

[cyrano]

The elephant in the room surrounding the intentional open border policy is the supposition that they will be creating a new future voting block that will vote with the left. It is unclear that this is a given. Coincidentally criminal organizations are making obscene amounts of money from human trafficking and drug smuggling across the open border. Not to mention the number of innocent deaths caused by fentanyl poisoning, mischaracterized as drug overdoses.

A number of years ago, someone here organised a test election mainly for "illegal aliens". A surprising number of those voted for an ultra-rightwing party that wants to kick them out.

At first glance, I supposed ignorance, or a language problem. It wasn't. A surprising number of them really like a strong govt. Mostly Islamic parents who have lost the grip on their kids, blaming modern society...

Some Jews voted for Hitler too. Hoping they would be spared if he came to power.

 

[JohnRoberts]

That is some interesting speculation but not worth arguing about. With economic migrants coming from over 100 countries it's difficult to stereotype them.
===
NYC passed legislation to allow 800,000 non citizens but legal residents to vote in local elections. I have mixed feelings about this. My problem is not with allowing legal resident to vote in local elections, my problem is with the open border, like a boat with huge hole in the bottom. I don't see how that ends without patching the hole or the boat sinking.
==
illegal immigrants and other non-citizens can be counted when states draw their legislative districts,
==
illegal aliens, by being included in the apportionment of congressional seats, are automatically given a role in determining the outcome of elections across the country, including the vote in the Electoral College that decides the Presidency.

Interesting times...

JR

 

[sodderboy]

I think that the Electoral College is an elegant aspect of an elegant founding. The Founders did everything they could to avoid the tyranny of the majority, as they saw how it rendered past governments into the detritus of history. The College keeps farmers and country folk on balance with all the "big city folks". It is difficult to keep states united, and great thought was applied.
The Three Branches of Government are taking a beating at this point in time, but thoughtful people still prevail in odd nooks.
I have no doubt that Operation Coward and Piven is in full effect with Susan Rice and other barama re-treads "running things" in the name of of obrandon, with the federal gubment fully weaponized against anything Constitutional, and ready to take ITSELF dizown!!, for a brief moment, and the following is not good for most US Americans, or anyone else for that matter.
The current "leadership" is gladly, deliberately, killing the country, there is no blame direction but to the faces in the mirrors of said fiends. This is barama's dream! He'll be OK on "the vinyad". . .
Sorry to be debbie downer, but all I see is self-inflicted suicide on all levels of gubment.
Mike

 

[shabtek]

Not sure what to make of that...Finnegans wake?

 

[shabtek]

The executive branch budget comes from?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

The executive branch budget comes from?

All Federal government funding bills originate in the House and must be approved (passed) by Congress. Of course the funds come from taxpayers. But growth of the bureaucracy generally originates in the Executive branch which has, by far, the largest number of employees.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The executive branch budget comes from?

Control of the purse strings (budgetary oversight) is the primary enforcement tool that congress has.

JR

 

[Matador]

We have tyranny of the minority, and will have so for the foreseeable future. We have a system where dirt gets to vote, and women's body autonomy rests on a) when a particular 80 year old woman dies, and b) a single Senator blocking a Constitutional nomination, and c) 40,000 GOP voters in three states.

So taxation and representation seems wholly irrelevant to me in the Christian Handmaidens Tale dystopia the US will become.

 

[pucho812]

the government is not being cruel or oppressive. Elections have consequences. if things continue down our current path, wait until midterms, then you will really be unhappy. As always the shift in the pendulum is constant. The Scotus was never supposed to be a political arm extension of either party. it also was not supposed to leak like a cuban refugee boat. In the end if if their job is done as they are supposed to there is no way one could conclude that roe V wade is constitutional because no where in the constitution does it state you are allowed to murder anyone.

 

[Matador]

roe V wade is constitutional because no where in the constitution does it state you are allowed to murder anyone.

The word murder doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution - in fact, only three crimes were outright named - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting of currency. By your own reasoning, the Constitution also doesn't explicitly forbid murder.

But 'murder' in the context of abortion is completely a "sincerely held personal belief", related to a philosophical question of when life begins, which is rooted in Christian fundamentalist dogma. Even the current crop of laws don't contemplate abortion as murder - the Texas law allows for civil actions, and most laws are for the act itself, and levied against the doctor performing the procedure. They are classified as felonies, but not murder. The majority decision is filled with complete nonsense, but murder isn't mentioned either.

There will be states with women's rights, and states without. Just like the founders intended.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

The word murder doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution - in fact, only three crimes were outright named - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting of currency. By your own reasoning, the Constitution also doesn't explicitly forbid murder.

Yet the preamble covers promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. Murder obviously deprives another of their welfare and liberty. I also recommend you review the 9th and 10th amendments in light of how Roe v Wade was decided.

But 'murder' in the context of abortion is completely a "sincerely held personal belief", related to a philosophical question of when life begins, which is rooted in Christian fundamentalist dogma. Even the current crop of laws don't contemplate abortion as murder - the Texas law allows for civil actions, and most laws are for the act itself, and levied against the doctor performing the procedure. They are classified as felonies, but not murder. The majority decision is filled with complete nonsense, but murder isn't mentioned either.

Of course the question always comes down to "when does life begin." The majority don't agree with either extreme. I would point out, however, that the murder of a pregnant woman usually results in two charges, so there is a precedent for killing the unborn being considered murder.

It is hard to take the "my body, my choice" crowd seriously after many of these same people backed mandatory vaccines.

There will be states with women's rights, and states without. Just like the founders intended.

Abortion is not an enumerated right. If the left wants to push for that, the Constitution thoughtfully includes a procedure to do so. Or the Congress can pass a law as was intended by the founders and then the Judiciary may have to decide the merits based on challenges. This is what should have happened, not having SCOTUS create law.

Interestingly Jane Roe, Norma Leah McCorvey, the plantiff in the original case, later changed her view from pro-choice to pro-life.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

We have tyranny of the minority, and will have so for the foreseeable future. We have a system where dirt gets to vote, and women's body autonomy rests on a) when a particular 80 year old woman dies, and b) a single Senator blocking a Constitutional nomination, and c) 40,000 GOP voters in three states.

Extremist babble.

Here's the 80 year old, herself.

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

So taxation and representation seems wholly irrelevant to me in the Christian Handmaidens Tale dystopia the US will become.

The more likely dystopian future is an oppressive authoritarian regime with constant surveillance and social scores managed with the help of a few tech oligarchs and their brainwashed minions. One with government control of speech, food, purchasing, and everything else. It won't come from people like Rand Paul, Tim Scott, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, John Kennedy, etc, but rather extremists on the left and the soft "centrists" who think they'll get to stay in power.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Guys can we take it down a notch... we are all friends here (I hope) ....

save the anger and name calling for politicians and other lower life forms.

JR

PS: I realize I am breaking my own rule about always being civil to famous celebrities but I am not perfect.

 

[shabtek]

are (resource intensive) future children (fetus) whom do not have a willing/capable etc. guardian there for the general welfare?
do acceptable military activities include murder? what about certain extreme debts to society?
whose liberty are we so concerned with? that of certain women?
don't tread on me

this all relates to taxation in my mind

 

[JohnRoberts]

Is that common core math?

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Perhaps it is: the usual retort is "just amend the Constitution", but that's like counseling someone who is poor to just plant a money tree.

There was an interesting study done a few years ago, that calculated that if every R voter switched residences with every D voter, and then ~7 million surplus D voters spread properly out amongst the remaining +R swing districts, then it would be impossible for the GOP to ever hold the presidency, ever have a majority in the Senate, and be net down 12-15 seats in the House in perpetuity (assuming 2020 voting levels). It's also possible to flip it around, and "pack" D voters into a handful of major cities in 15-20 states, and distribute the R voters equally amongst the other states in the right way, then R would be favored +7 for the presidency, retain 64 Senate seats, and have over 30 House seats. If memory serves the Presidency could be won by Democrats, but only if the popular vote margin approached 20 million people.

The same people, holding the same views, voting in nationwide election(s), with two polar opposite outcomes for the Presidency. If that's not a referendum on how we pick a President I don't know what is.

We'd all starve within a year, too, so does this ridiculous thought experiment really mean what you think it does?

 

[pucho812]

Perhaps it is: the usual retort is "just amend the Constitution", but that's like counseling someone who is poor to just plant a money tree.

There was an interesting study done a few years ago, that calculated that if every R voter switched residences with every D voter, and then ~7 million surplus D voters spread properly out amongst the remaining +R swing districts, then it would be impossible for the GOP to ever hold the presidency, ever have a majority in the Senate, and be net down 12-15 seats in the House in perpetuity (assuming 2020 voting levels). It's also possible to flip it around, and "pack" D voters into a handful of major cities in 15-20 states, and distribute the R voters equally amongst the other states in the right way, then R would be favored +7 for the presidency, retain 64 Senate seats, and have over 30 House seats. If memory serves the Presidency could be won by Democrats, but only if the popular vote margin approached 20 million people.

The same people, holding the same views, voting in nationwide election(s), with two polar opposite outcomes for the Presidency. If that's not a referendum on how we pick a President I don't know what is.

link me? I think their math is off. Reality is a bit more convoluted. Not everyone votes for their registered party every single time.