2020 Primaries

#5,403
#5,403
I propose 10 electoral college votes per state or territory. States can choose their own method of allocating those votes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#5,404
#5,404
OHvol40 said:
Right, this is an implied power. I think people who understand the structure of government understand this implied power.
Click to expand...

John Marshall’s genius made implication precedent, which is why stare decisis is such an essential cornerstone in constitutional law and why bad decisions have terrible long term consequences.
 
#5,409
#5,409
OHvol40 said:
Exactly. Slave states had a low population, most of which consisted of slaves. Ergo they pushed for the EC and the 3/5th compromise. It was all ratified because of the economic influence these states wielded.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

You do realize you're ignoring the underlying truth that the Constitution had to satisfy ALL states. The individual states were under no obligation to ratify the Constitution. In fact, some held off until the Bill of Rights was added. Any state that did not ratify the Constitution would not have been part of the union. Compromises were made in order to form that "more perfect union".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#5,410
#5,410
Weezer said:
Wrong.

You do realize you're ignoring the underlying truth that the Constitution had to satisfy ALL states. The individual states were under no obligation to ratify the Constitution. In fact, some held off until the Bill of Rights was added. Any state that did not ratify the Constitution would not have been part of the union. Compromises were made in order to form that "more perfect union".
Click to expand...

Right. It was all debated extensively between 13 colonies. Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia all had a vested interest in preserving both their slave labor economy and their influence within the union. Those are the states whose representatives were sent to ensure the preservation of those two things. That’s is where the EC and 3/5th compromise all stems from.
 
#5,412
#5,412
Rifleman said:
Judicial review was established by Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Without that precedent a lot of American jurisprudence becomes meaningless.
Click to expand...

I'm very biased as an engineer, so I tend to take things more as they actually are than how something might be interpreted ... gravity tends to be gravity and have preferred rules after all. With that as a background, why do all the mumbo-jumbo in courts when we could actually simply write a law saying it's illegal to kill someone if it's not in self defense, for example? Then all the court has to do is keep play in bounds rather than continually defining the boundaries and the rules as viewed through one or another judge's warped perspective (a guy or gal we generally didn't elect). Within a week's span didn't we just see that illegals could cross the border and now they can't again? How can you say the law goes one way and then somebody else immediately reverses it without a charge of gross incompetence? I had the apparently wildly mistaken thought that the Constitution put things in broad terms and the legislators were supposed to write legislation ... laws to define the specifics; and that by electing them we had some input ... foolish thought I know. If after three tries a legislature can't write a law in clear concise English, they're out, they go home without passing Go, and we try a new set to see if they can get it right. If they decide that there's a need for to execute somebody twice for a "hate" crime, they're out for criminal stupidity, and we try out a new bunch. This stuff shouldn't be that difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#5,414
#5,414
OHvol40 said:
Right. It was all debated extensively between 13 colonies. Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia all had a vested interest in preserving both their slave labor economy and their influence within the union. Those are the states whose representatives were sent to ensure the preservation of those two things. That’s is where the EC and 3/5th compromise all stems from.
Click to expand...
Tell you what, let's switch to popular vote on the condition that any state opposing the move is allowed to leave the union. Then those states can form their own country. Sounds "fair", since fairness is what this is all about, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, DynaLo, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
#5,415
#5,415
Weezer said:
Tell you what, let's switch to popular vote on the condition that any state opposing the move is allowed to leave the union. Then those states can form their own country. Sounds "fair", since fairness is what this is all about, right?
Click to expand...

Lol sure
 
#5,418
#5,418
Septic said:
It means what it means, I've heard a bunch of folks in these very forums bellyache about having to recognize minority status groups like blacks, gays, atheists, trannys etc. or how their agenda is being crammed down their throats through libtard legislation and judicial activism. I just find it ironic that suddenly when it comes to the EC, the same people who grouse about the former are likely thumping the Constitution as the source of protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Apparently I was on the right track when I decided I might not have been, but I still don't see your connections.
 
#5,422
#5,422
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL69
#5,424
#5,424
Weezer said:
The reason we formed a union is because it benefited everyone. Smaller states do not benefit by being dictated by larger states. Are you being purposely dense, or do you truly not understand the origins of our country?
Click to expand...

I understand the origins perfectly well. In fact, I told you some about not only the finished product of the constitution, but some of the thinking behind the work.

I don’t understand why the concept of one man one vote is so strange, especially when we use it in America for every election but one. I do understand that some people don’t like the idea of giving up their special preferential treatment, though.
 
#5,425
#5,425
OHvol40 said:
I understand the origins perfectly well. In fact, I told you some about not only the finished product of the constitution, but some of the thinking behind the work.

I don’t understand why the concept of one man one vote is so strange, especially when we use it in America for every election but one. I do understand that some people don’t like the idea of giving up their special preferential treatment, though.
Click to expand...

Damn counselor. Now you know what people think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL69
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top