Question: The Electoral College
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
My problem is this: if you want it to be constitutional then you can make an argument for that. If you want it to be unconstitutional you can make an argument for that. However it can only be one or the other. Why can we not find an objective person to look at the facts and make an unbiased decision?
Haha! Yup. Little known fact: he has another cousin - a redneck terrorist named Dun Bin Did. They are the Jimmy Swaggart,, Mickey Gilley, and Jerry Lee Lewis of the criminal underground. Paul is the goofy, likeable one, but can grate on your nerves.
The problem with judging the constitutionality of most issues boils down to this: Are you judging based on the Constitution as adopted or the Constitution as one side or another wishes it to be?
As adopted, if you want to judge the constitutionality of an act by looking at Article I, Section 8. If it is listed there, then it is constitutional. If not, it is not constitutional. On the other hand, since about 1790, there have been those who judge the constitutionality of an act by "I want X to be constitutional, therefore it is," or "if you torture the language enough, you can see a penumbra that covers Y," or "if I had been in Philadelphia, I would have included Z, therefore Z is constitutional."
The latter method has held sway for a long time, but the former still asserts itself from time to time.
Stated more accurately: written language is an imperfect medium to convey precise meaning.
There will always be unforeseen grey areas that require interpretation. Hence my link showing two framers of the Constitution on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case arguing the limits of federal taxation authority under the Constitution that they both helped create.
I appreciate that.
The Framers were the proposers only. The ratifiers were, in fact, the real Founders. Madison put it best:
The Founders in the state conventions were divided into two camps: (1) those who opposed ratification because they believed that the federal government would exercise powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and (2) those who supported ratification because the federal government would never be able to exercise any powers but those expressly enumerated in the Constitution.Madison said:
There were none, not one, who said, "I believe we should ratify this Constitution because the federal government will be able to loosely interpret its own powers."
And Hamilton arguing in favor of an excise tax (but describing it as not a direct tax) sidesteps the issue. Hamilton in Philadelphia argued for federal selection of state governors and a federal negative on state laws (and did not get a second). When he did not get his way, he described the constitution as adopted as a "frail and worthless fabric." If there was money to be made by Hamilton or his friends, Hamilton would argue that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
On the issue of a wealth tax, I would place it in the category of "good idea" (maybe) but not in the category of "constitutional idea." Not every good idea is constitutional and not every constitutional idea is a good idea. Plus, I think, even if adopted, it would not raise the tax revenue hoped for, because you would give a powerful incentive to the super wealthy to move their wealth out of the United States.
On the issue of a wealth tax, I would place it in the category of "good idea" (maybe) but not in the category of "constitutional idea." Not every good idea is constitutional and not every constitutional idea is a good idea. Plus, I think, even if adopted, it would not raise the tax revenue hoped for, because you would give a powerful incentive to the super wealthy to move their wealth out of the United States.
Supremes discuss "faithless electors."
The Constitution does not "delegate" any power to the states. The states have powers delegated from the people of said state. The Constitution does restrict some powers from the states, by virtue of the people of that state ratifying the Constitution.
For the states to not have the power to punish faithless electors, it would have to be listed in the limitations in Art. I, Section 10.
Anyway, a state may impose any punishment on a faithless elector it wishes to.
Do law school student study the ratification debates?
The Constitution does not "delegate" any power to the states. The states have powers delegated from the people of said state. The Constitution does restrict some powers from the states, by virtue of the people of that state ratifying the Constitution.
For the states to not have the power to punish faithless electors, it would have to be listed in the limitations in Art. I, Section 10.
Anyway, a state may impose any punishment on a faithless elector it wishes to.
The people do not really vote for the electors. They vote for the candidate of their choice, but the electors are chosen ahead of time by the parties and assigned to the candidates. You may see them listed on the ballot in some states, but there really is not a choice. If you vote GOP, you get the GOP electors already assigned. There is no list of electors to choose from. At least, not in any of the states I have voted from.
Where the EC came from was from a proposal by Madison (I believe) that members of Congress elect the president. This ran afoul of the idea of Montesquieu on the separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial, so the members of the Philadelphia convention said that and equal number men not members of Congress would come to gather as an Electoral College to select the president and the vice president.
How the electors were chosen was entirely up to the several states, as was the question of whether they were bound by instructions from that state or not. Some states held statewide elections to select electors. In many, the state legislature picked the state's electors. In fact, no one in South Carolina ever voted for president prior to 1876. The state legislature always selected South Carolina's electors.
Whether they were bound by instructions or not, I offer the results of the electoral college of 1788: eleven candidates got votes. Six of eleven states held an election of the population. In Virginia, Washington got all 69 EC votes of the Old Dominion. All the other states selected their electors by state legislature. Three states (New York, Massachusetts, and Georgia) split their electoral college votes.
North Carolina and Rhode Island did not cast votes in the Electoral College at all because they were not in the Union in 1788. They had, in effect, seceded.
That is true as it stands today.
The counsel for the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court made the astounding argument the Constitution does not delegate to the states the power to punish faithless electors. The Constitution for the United States does not delegate any powers to the states. Where it mentions state powers at all, it is only to restrict them from exercising certain specified powers. (e.g. "No State shall ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.") but the restrictions stand not because the federal government tells states it cannot exercise a certain power, but because the people of the United States, in ratifying the constitution and amendments, said so.
The SCOTUS' proper response to this case is to tell the plaintiffs (seeking overthrow of states' "faithless electors" punishments) to get lost.
Last edited:
I have never understood why geography, rock and trees should be taken into account when electing a president.
The 1st time a Democrat gets elected without a plurality, you will see all the EC boosters change their tune.
But Republicans do that all the time. As in their vow to seat a SC justice during an election year. Remember, "let the people decide"?
The 1st time a Democrat gets elected without a plurality, you will see all the EC boosters change their tune.
But Republicans do that all the time. As in their vow to seat a SC justice during an election year. Remember, "let the people decide"?
Rocks and trees aren't. Geography only is to the extent it limits the area where the state election is held.
Yeah, there will only be hypocrisy in one direction. The Democrat who won such would then have the courage of his/her convictions and say, "I've always believed in the popular vote so congratulations to (the opponent) on winning."
I'm still told to this day by people who scream about the popular vote that the 2004 election was close, based on the notion that Kerry would have been President if he had won the electoral votes from Ohio. Let's not pretend political hypocrisy is the sole domain of the GOP.
You think it would have been better if McConnell would have just held a vote and the GOP voted Garland down?
Latest threads
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry
- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-