Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[barton]

Look at those nested quote boxes verrry carefully....



Interesting that Trump wouldn't take a meet with Corbyn because Corbyn is "critical" of the USA taking over and privatizing Britain's NHS, arguably one of the most laughable of Trump's ideas.   I thought Donnie was a master dealmaker!  Is that how you become one, by just never dealing with anyone who's got a criticism?   Would certainly narrow the field.

[REDSTATEWARD]

"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" says nothing about how any determination for the Electors' voting.

Nor does anything in the 12th Amendment, or you would not have bitched and moaned about my not putting them in the same post.

You got bupkis.

No I have the Constitution.  The appointment of electors is a delegated right granted to the states by the Constitution and while that right can be amended( i.e.12th ) it cannot be amended without Congressional approval NOR  in any manner that changes the overall purpose of the presidential election system.  And that system is an indirect election carried out through the Electoral College.
What the Nevada Legislature was trying to do a was convert Nevada ELECTORS into agents of other states.
Blatantly unconstitutional. 

[oilcan]

What the Nevada Legislature was trying to do a was convert Nevada ELECTORS into agents of other states.
Blatantly unconstitutional.

Tenth amendment?  If the federal constitution doesn't expressly forbid states against some sort of popular vote conversion, then why wouldn't a state have that power to write it into their own laws? 

[oilcan]

Seems no one here cares about the Va Beach massacre either. 
(Not a "white supremacist" that perpetrated, so no comment)

Could it be that everyone has stated their policy position here on what to do, and realize that rehashing that is pointless? 

Today I didn't mention child abuse.  Must mean I don't care about it.  You see the idiocy of that kind of gambit?

[REDSTATEWARD]

What the Nevada Legislature was trying to do a was convert Nevada ELECTORS into agents of other states.
Blatantly unconstitutional.

Tenth amendment?  If the federal constitution doesn't expressly forbid states against some sort of popular vote conversion, then why wouldn't a state have that power to write it into their own laws?

The procedure  for naming electors in the Electoral College is defined in Article II of the  Constitution and delegated to the States.
The 10th Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[facilitatorn]

Red loves this argument. It takes the spotlight off the weird sex/theft cult he supports politically.

[kiidcarter8]

Seems no one here cares about the Va Beach massacre either. 
(Not a "white supremacist" that perpetrated, so no comment)

Could it be that everyone has stated their policy position here on what to do, and realize that rehashing that is pointless? 

no

[whiskeypriest]

"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" says nothing about how any determination for the Electors' voting.

Nor does anything in the 12th Amendment, or you would not have bitched and moaned about my not putting them in the same post.

You got bupkis.

No I have the Constitution.  The appointment of electors is a delegated right granted to the states by the Constitution and while that right can be amended( i.e.12th ) it cannot be amended without Congressional approval NOR  in any manner that changes the overall purpose of the presidential election system.  And that system is an indirect election carried out through the Electoral College.
What the Nevada Legislature was trying to do a was convert Nevada ELECTORS into agents of other states.
Blatantly unconstitutional.

Nothing in the Constitution instructs a state in how its electors must vote.

[REDSTATEWARD]

"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" says nothing about how any determination for the Electors' voting.

Nor does anything in the 12th Amendment, or you would not have bitched and moaned about my not putting them in the same post.

You got bupkis.

No I have the Constitution.  The appointment of electors is a delegated right granted to the states by the Constitution and while that right can be amended( i.e.12th ) it cannot be amended without Congressional approval NOR  in any manner that changes the overall purpose of the presidential election system.  And that system is an indirect election carried out through the Electoral College.
What the Nevada Legislature was trying to do a was convert Nevada ELECTORS into agents of other states.
Blatantly unconstitutional.

Nothing in the Constitution instructs a state in how its electors must vote.

As I said. The Nevada proposal ignored the Constitution.

[NeedsAdjustments]

The appointment of electors is a delegated right granted to the states by the Constitution and while that right can be amended( i.e.12th ) it cannot be amended without Congressional approval NOR  in any manner that changes the overall purpose of the presidential election system.

The overall purpose of the presidential election system is to elect a President.  The rule change Nevada proposed would not change that.

The question, which you are unable to articulate, would be if the courts see this rule change as only an end run around the electoral college.  And even if they did, this would be a textbook case of how a deeper interpretation of the Constitution needs to come to play to make a decision vs. some literal reading of the words written in the document (which you erroneously seem to think supports your case.)

The original purpose of the EC was a buffer against the provincial and misinformed masses.  The Electors were originally able to vote for whoever they wanted. Only later did it become customary for those electors to vote for the first past the post winner of the statewide popular vote, making the voting process itself pure formality (for all but two states anyway.)

So what is it for now?  I fully understand the argument that the EC supports smaller states who normally would get no attention in a nationwide race.  No, I don’t agree with this argument, and think in practice it now slices the other way, where New York and California and Texas are ignored while swing states wield all the power.   But what is to prevent a state from voluntarily putting itself in that position?  Why can’t they say “We will cast our votes, but defer to the whole country to tell us who to vote for?”

Nothing, from what I can see.  Certainly not anything in the Constitution.

Sure, someone would bring it to the courts, but having a case, let alone a “blatant” one?  That’s REDSTATEWAD partisanship speaking.  An argument he wouldn’t be making if the two recent candidates denied the Presidency despite winning the popular vote were Republicans.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The appointment of electors is a delegated right granted to the states by the Constitution and while that right can be amended( i.e.12th ) it cannot be amended without Congressional approval NOR  in any manner that changes the overall purpose of the presidential election system.

The overall purpose of the presidential election system is to elect a President.  The rule change Nevada proposed would not change that.

The question, which you are unable to articulate, would be if the courts see this rule change as only an end run around the electoral college.  And even if they did, this would be a textbook case of how a deeper interpretation of the Constitution needs to come to play to make a decision vs. some literal reading of the words written in the document (which you erroneously seem to think supports your case.)

The original purpose of the EC was a buffer against the provincial and misinformed masses.  The Electors were originally able to vote for whoever they wanted. Only later did it become customary for those electors to vote for the first past the post winner of the statewide popular vote, making the voting process itself pure formality (for all but two states anyway.)

So what is it for now?  I fully understand the argument that the EC supports smaller states who normally would get no attention in a nationwide race.  No, I don’t agree with this argument, and think in practice it now slices the other way, where New York and California and Texas are ignored while swing states wield all the power.   But what is to prevent a state from voluntarily putting itself in that position?  Why can’t they say “We will cast our votes, but defer to the whole country to tell us who to vote for?”

Nothing, from what I can see.  Certainly not anything in the Constitution.

Sure, someone would bring it to the courts, but having a case, let alone a “blatant” one?  That’s REDSTATEWAD partisanship speaking.  An argument he wouldn’t be making if the two recent candidates denied the Presidency despite winning the popular vote were Republicans.

You fail to understand the argument.
Nevada's law was vetoed because the Governor believed it was improper to force Nevadans' electoral college votes to go to someone who finished second  in the state's  winner-take-all election.

It is, in addition, blatantly unconstitutional since it violates Article 2 of the US Constitution that set uo the Electoral College and delegated the choosing of electors to the states.Moreover, delegated rights cannot be overturned without Congressional action.
This has nothing to do with whether there is a better system of selecting a President than the Electoral College. There is a constitutional path to change.  Nevada's law was not on that path.

[facilitatorn]

There may be language in Nevada’s constitution that conflicted with the vetoed bill, but there is nothing in the federal constitution.

Oregon’s governor is on deck now as their legislature has forwarded the same proposal.

[barton]

The mere fact that electors can be faithless underscores that neither the nation nor the states have properly firmed up the legal structure of an EC, instead leaning on custom. Since its guiding ethos was to allow an elite (from which electors were meant to be drawn) to "correct" anything the stupid unwashed masses did, it's clearly time to scrap it. 

Living documents can be changed.   Dead ones only serve the cognitively dead.   

[NeedsAdjustments]

You fail to understand the argument.
Nevada's law was vetoed because the Governor believed it was improper to force Nevadans' electoral college votes to go to someone who finished second  in the state's  winner-take-all election.

I wasn't addressing an argument about whether one person would think it "proper" or not.  I was addressing the Constitutionality of the change.

It is, in addition, blatantly unconstitutional since it violates Article 2 of the US Constitution that set uo the Electoral College and delegated the choosing of electors to the states.

As has been pointed out to you, the Nevada law would be exactly that.  The state is still choosing its electors.

Moreover, delegated rights cannot be overturned without Congressional action.

See above.  No rights are being overturned.

This has nothing to do with whether there is a better system of selecting a President than the Electoral College. There is a constitutional path to change.  Nevada's law was not on that path.

I wasn't proposing a better system of selecting a President.  I was addressing your argument re: the purpose of the current one, which as I said was originally based on an antiquated notion of "Democracy" and which now could eventually reasonably be questioned on a nationwide level, but is a debate that States are constitutionally free to have at this very moment.

[REDSTATEWARD]

You fail to understand the argument.
Nevada's law was vetoed because the Governor believed it was improper to force Nevadans' electoral college votes to go to someone who finished second  in the state's  winner-take-all election.

I wasn't addressing an argument about whether one person would think it "proper" or not.  I was addressing the Constitutionality of the change.

It is, in addition, blatantly unconstitutional since it violates Article 2 of the US Constitution that set uo the Electoral College and delegated the choosing of electors to the states.

As has been pointed out to you, the Nevada law would be exactly that.  The state is still choosing its electors.

No. The proposed law would have given the Nevada Electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Moreover, delegated rights cannot be overturned without Congressional action.

See above.  No rights are being overturned.

Only the rights of Nevada Voters to determine who gets the state's electoral votes.

This has nothing to do with whether there is a better system of selecting a President than the Electoral College. There is a constitutional path to change.  Nevada's law was not on that path.


I wasn't proposing a better system of selecting a President.  I was addressing your argument re: the purpose of the current one, which as I said was originally based on an antiquated notion of "Democracy" and which now could eventually reasonably be questioned on a nationwide level, but is a debate that States are constitutionally free to have at this very moment.

Not on the Electoral College. US Constitutional Changes have to start with Congress.