Bill to allow Congress to overrule S. Court

[macguymike]

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3920.html

So, checks and balances isn't in style anymore apparently. :p

[rainman::|:|]

i think i'm going to be sick.

[dethl]

What utter bullcrap. I pray this never passes. Looks like I'm sending my senators and representatives a nice letter.

[jxyama]

um, this site is a joke, right?

[Plutoniq]

First we have the Patriot Act which blatently ignores individual rights granted by the Bill of Rights, then the FCC passes a law which enables corporations to monopolize as many news media sources as they want, now this? Funny how all this crap goes down during Bush's dirty administration........ founding fathers would be rollin' in their graves! I don't care if your republican or democratic, it would be INSANE and detrimental to the future of this country to vote republican this upcoming election.

[Plutoniq]

No, unfortunatley its real! Dirty dirty political tyranny....

[MorganX]

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3920.html

So, checks and balances isn't in style anymore apparently. :p

I actually support this Bill. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Once the court is stacked you have to wait until they die off to restore balance. Look at runaway judges allowing gay marriages where it is illegal. (That is not inteded to debate gay marriages, but to show that judges also have their own agendas and checks and balances must be in all phases of law.)

A stacked Supreme Court can force their own, or their parties agendas on the nation. I think 2/3 of both houses reaching a concensus should enable them to overturn Supreme court rulings.

[stoid]

Seems to run along the same lines as Congress being able to over rule a Presidential veto. Doesn't mean that checks and balances are gone, it's just adding another check and balance to the mix. I'm not yet decided to support or not, but I at least consider it a reasonable idea.

[Plutoniq]

I actually support this Bill. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Once the court is stacked you have to wait until they die off to restore balance. Look at runaway judges allowing gay marriages where it is illegal. (That is not inteded to debate gay marriages, but to show that judges also have their own agendas and checks and balances must be in all phases of law.)

A stacked Supreme Court can force their own, or their parties agendas on the nation. I think 2/3 of both houses reaching a concensus should enable them to overturn Supreme court rulings.

The Supreme Court is there to protect peoples rights granted by The Constitution on a federal level.....it aint about opinion, it's interpretation. They are there to protect YOUR rights, and only that. You think Congress's main agenda is just that.....BLAH!!!!! That passed the Patriot Act, just slipped it on through while everyones attention was blinded by the "imminent threat" of terrorism in their backyard. How about giving the President right for Pre-emptive attack.....what a load of absolute crap, if every Country made this there policy we'd be in a perpetual WWIII.

[railthinner]

I actually support this Bill. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Once the court is stacked you have to wait until they die off to restore balance.

The solution then would be to change the method for appointing Judges and to limit their term (stay, reign, whatever you would call it.) This idea of activist judges is a load of poo poo. Perhaps another, better solution would be then to have a congressional committee who regularly reviewed the courts actions. If they can actually prove a judges rulings or courts actions are indeed unconstitutional (like deciding who wins a presidential election -- and I just use THIS as an example, not to bring up the debate) then you'd have a hell of a fight on your hands.

[rainman::|:|]

I actually support this Bill. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Once the court is stacked you have to wait until they die off to restore balance. Look at runaway judges allowing gay marriages where it is illegal. (That is not inteded to debate gay marriages, but to show that judges also have their own agendas and checks and balances must be in all phases of law.)

A stacked Supreme Court can force their own, or their parties agendas on the nation. I think 2/3 of both houses reaching a concensus should enable them to overturn Supreme court rulings.

Uh, yeah, 2/3 of the congress CAN overturn supreme court rulings, it's called an AMENDMENT, and it's difficult to get for a reason.

The court is there to determine which is right-- citizens, or the law. The law HAS to be in line with the constitution. MUST. it's the only real inherent rule in the country. When laws are NOT in line with the constitution, the court must strike them down. Obviously, if the law is on the books, congress has already FAILED in doing their job, as they've passed an unconstitutional law. The supreme court is the citizens' last line of defense for the constitution. This would undermine that.

The gay union issue, it's a great indicator of why checks and balances are still working. To say that there was judicial activism, or that there was in fact ANY impropriety, even moral, would be wrong.

I say, if they're going to push for this kind of garbage, liberals need to tack on a bit about it being ILLEGAL (and quite punishable) for senators to vote in favor of unconstitutional laws. But, then, who would determine what's constitutional? the supreme court would be stripped and powerless to do this.

paul

[Dont Hurt Me]

Im not saying im for or against but we do give the supreme court to much authority in my view. why should they get appointed for life?? also the Judges have been making law these days rather then enforcing current law. law can be bent to back your agenda and this has been going on for to long. who do these guys answer too? This is the problem. sure we need checks and balance but who checks and balances these guys?

[Dippo]

I say, if they're going to push for this kind of garbage, liberals need to tack on a bit about it being ILLEGAL (and quite punishable) for senators to vote in favor of unconstitutional laws. But, then, who would determine what's constitutional? the supreme court would be stripped and powerless to do this.


I think this bill would be kinda pointless in the first place because the Supreme Court would strike it down as being unconstitutional.

Of course it will be a sad day in our democracy when we have to pass admendments instead of laws just so that the courts don't overturn them!

[Chip NoVaMac]

I actually support this Bill. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Once the court is stacked you have to wait until they die off to restore balance. Look at runaway judges allowing gay marriages where it is illegal. (That is not inteded to debate gay marriages, but to show that judges also have their own agendas and checks and balances must be in all phases of law.)

A stacked Supreme Court can force their own, or their parties agendas on the nation. I think 2/3 of both houses reaching a concensus should enable them to overturn Supreme court rulings.

Keep in mind many consider this court to be "stacked" towards the conservative side of the house. yet some of their most recent decisions have been in my mind most liberal. Liberal from the standpoint that they have tried to fully understand the words that our founding fathers gave us. We have not always agreed with their decisions (on both sides).

i am not sure, but it seems that this is another attempt by conservatives to achieve what they can't through the law. I think that they see that in the issue of gay marriages/civil unions and gun control that their days are numbered. The same conservatives that celebrated the 'coronation' of Bush after the 200 elections.

You may look at gay marriages (to use it as an example) as the courts deciding social policy. But would you fault the courts that felt that owning slaves wrong? Or that the idea of inter-racial marriage was wrong? Or the idea of separate but equal education wrong? 30-50 years ago you might find yourself siding on the side of "discrimination".

It is the courts that need to address the law, but also the state and federal constitutional law. At least to my knowledge, using your example of gay marriages, the courts have found that the respective constitutions are being violated. You may not like the result, but equal rights means equal rights for all, even for those that you might not think deserve equal rights.

The rumble you hear is the founding fathers turning over in their graves yet again (first time was after passage of the Patriot Act).

[Dippo]

But would you fault the courts that felt that owning slaves wrong?

Or that the idea of inter-racial marriage was wrong?

Or the idea of separate but equal education wrong?


And what court cases decided any of these???

[Chip NoVaMac]

The solution then would be to change the method for appointing Judges and to limit their term (stay, reign, whatever you would call it.) This idea of activist judges is a load of poo poo. Perhaps another, better solution would be then to have a congressional committee who regularly reviewed the courts actions. If they can actually prove a judges rulings or courts actions are indeed unconstitutional (like deciding who wins a presidential election -- and I just use THIS as an example, not to bring up the debate) then you'd have a hell of a fight on your hands.

Amen to that! It is also time to eliminate the Electoral College.

[rainman::|:|]

And what court cases decided any of these???

Good god, man, have some clue what you're talking about before you post. Can't speak for the first one, because i don't think any court case actually did reference that (i could be wrong), but

2. in 1967, the supreme court struck down the final ban on interracial marriages. This ban was still effective in 18 states. In the remaining 32 states, prior court cases had already overturned the interracial ban.

3. again, supreme court, Brown v Board of Education, ruling was that "separate but equal" is wrong.

So, there we have two of the three, handled by the very court we're arguing about. I'm sure the country would be much better if congress could have reversed these decisions.

on a sidenote, i agree that the life-terms on the court are wrong, it should be 8 or 10 year terms. Also, the supreme court is understaffed... i believe it can have up to 15 justices. Might be nice to have some diversity there.

And the electoral college, that's right out. antequated POS.

paul

[Chip NoVaMac]

Good god, man, have some clue what you're talking about before you post. Can't speak for the first one, because i don't think any court case actually did reference that (i could be wrong), but

2. in 1967, the supreme court struck down the final ban on interracial marriages. This ban was still effective in 18 states. In the remaining 32 states, prior court cases had already overturned the interracial ban.

3. again, supreme court, Brown v Board of Education, ruling was that "separate but not equal" is wrong.

So, there we have two of the three, handled by the very court we're arguing about. I'm sure the country would be much better if congress could have reversed these decisions.

paul

Thanks Paul, I was working on civic class education form years ago. The issue that some forget is that while we remember the Supreme Court decisions, we rarely remember the state and local court decisions (and is this not the basis for many Supreme court decisions?).

the point being is that I may hate purple people. But the Constitution allows them the same rights as "most" others in this country. If the courts say that purple people have the same rights i have little choice to support that. That is the price we pay for having the Constitution. Otherwise go live under a dictatorship that you support!

[mactastic]

Good god, man, have some clue what you're talking about before you post. Can't speak for the first one, because i don't think any court case actually did reference that (i could be wrong), but

2. in 1967, the supreme court struck down the final ban on interracial marriages. This ban was still effective in 18 states. In the remaining 32 states, prior court cases had already overturned the interracial ban.

3. again, supreme court, Brown v Board of Education, ruling was that "separate but not equal" is wrong.

So, there we have two of the three, handled by the very court we're arguing about. I'm sure the country would be much better if congress could have reversed these decisions.

paul

To point one... It was important enough that an actual amendment to the constitution was passed that read:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


AFAIK, this officially ended slavery.

[macguymike]

Seems to run along the same lines as Congress being able to over rule a Presidential veto. Doesn't mean that checks and balances are gone, it's just adding another check and balance to the mix. I'm not yet decided to support or not, but I at least consider it a reasonable idea.

I actually support this Bill. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment.


Not quite on either case. Note that this bill would allow Congress to, after acting in a way that is unconstitutional, then be able defend that act against a ruling from the Supreme Court.

That's the unbalancing aspect. Not kosher at all in my book. And definitely not the same as Congress overruling a veto.

[JesseJames]

This is what I say to that:
http://www.tomandjerryonline.com/sounds/laugh.wav

[MacRumorSkeptic]

First we have the Patriot Act which blatently ignores individual rights granted by the Bill of Rights, then the FCC passes a law which enables corporations to monopolize as many news media sources as they want, now this? Funny how all this crap goes down during Bush's dirty administration........ founding fathers would be rollin' in their graves! I don't care if your republican or democratic, it would be INSANE and detrimental to the future of this country to vote republican this upcoming election.

Like the Democrats are any better. We need to realize that both parties are different sides to the same coin. Their objective is governmental control of our lives.

[JesseJames]

When reached for comment President Bush had this to say:
http://www.tomandjerryonline.com/sounds/c-a-t.wav

[briankonar]

Amen to that! It is also time to eliminate the Electoral College.
YES! GIVE THEM THE HEAVE!!

i don't know how i feel about this. can anyone give a little more explanation as to the actual contents of the web site (i'm lazy). would congress have the ability to veto only if a certain percentage are in agreement, or do they replace the supreme court entirely? i agree the supreme court is the average american's last line of defence against corporate america, but i also feel that a great majority of judges enforce their own interpretations of the law, (reducing minimum sentences for good behavior etc. or even showing mercy on parents who kill their children by putting them in insane asylums, etc, gay marriage is another can of worms which i believe the constitution should make legal if all men are created equal then equal rights for everyone).

[macguymike]

on a sidenote, i agree that the life-terms on the court are wrong, it should be 8 or 10 year terms. Also, the supreme court is understaffed... i believe it can have up to 15 justices. Might be nice to have some diversity there.

And the electoral college, that's right out. antequated POS.

paul

The idea behind life-terms when it comes to Supreme Court judicial appointments is that if a judge is concerned about the possibility of re-appointment to a seat, he or she will not make rulings based on impartial reason but instead may make decisions that are more likely to be deemed popular.

[rainman::|:|]

First off, Dippo, i apologize for my harsh tone earlier. That was uncalled for.

Secondly. Here's my thought on why this bill will not (and should not) pass. Can anyone give a specific instance where this would have been useful? Has the supreme court ever done anything so outrageous as to get 2/3 of congress to oppose? Even roe v wade wasn't that controvercial-- a constitutional amendment to ban abortion has never been successful.

So someone tell me why this is needed. Don't bring up the gay marriage issue, that's several years away from the supreme court. Someone tell me what the supreme court has ever done that should warrant the derailing of checks/balances. I don't see it.

And hell, i don't even *like* the court right now. I have absolutely no respect for Scalia, and i'm not fond of most of the other justices. But I still don't think their power should be taken away.

I think the real reason people want this is because they're afraid that a) a bunch of the old justices will die next term, giving a democrat the power to replace them; b) The issue of gay marriage (and anything else that religion opposes, no doubt) will reach the court when it's in this lopsided liberal mode; c) The court will hold that gay marriage is a constitutionally guarded right, and d) Congress will have more than 2/3rds disagreement, yet they would fail at getting 2/3rds of the states to ratify it. I simply cannot see another issue big enough to cause this bill to be proposed. And, if this is indeed the case, don't you think it's pretty wrong to tear apart checks/balances forever for the express purpose of a partisan civil rights debate?

but yes, as mentioned above, the supreme court could just strike the law down-- they'd need an amendment to the constitution to get an absurdity like this written into the USA.

Thank God the founding fathers had the brilliance and foresight to make it hard for contemporary politics to influence the foundation of our country. Truly great men.

paul

[rainman::|:|]

The idea behind life-terms when it comes to Supreme Court judicial appointments is that if a judge is concerned about the possibility of re-appointment to a seat, he or she will not make rulings based on impartial reason but instead may make decisions that are more likely to be deemed popular.

Yes, i know, it's an insulation from voter approval and politics. But, i guess it's the nature of the beast, that human beings will find a way to corrupt it either way. With life terms, justices know they can do whatever they want... and do, despite the impropriety. Hunting, anyone?

Maybe the way it is now is the best it can be. Maybe a compromise could be found, like when all of the other justices agree on it, they hold a special election for that particular seat. But, we digress :)

paul

[Dont Hurt Me]

First we have the Patriot Act which blatently ignores individual rights granted by the Bill of Rights, then the FCC passes a law which enables corporations to monopolize as many news media sources as they want, now this? Funny how all this crap goes down during Bush's dirty administration........ founding fathers would be rollin' in their graves! I don't care if your republican or democratic, it would be INSANE and detrimental to the future of this country to vote republican this upcoming election.

Like the Democrats are any better. We need to realize that both parties are different sides to the same coin. Their objective is governmental control of our lives.did you hit the nail on the head or what, these guys on both sides are destroying our freedoms,libertys and way of life everyday. they both want to tell us what to do and when to do it and then send them our working dollars while they discover new ways to waste them. What we need to do for starters is outlaw partys period, and then business donations to candidates and that would clean up the mess.

[Foxer]

With a couple, narrow and very specific exceptions, the Constitution already grants Congress the right to determine the jurisdiction of all the federal Courts. During the first century of the Republic, they frequently adjusted the jurisdiction, the number of Justices, and anything and everything about the lower courts. If Congress decides that the Supreme Court can't hear cases regarding, say, Prisoners of War, all they have to do is pass a law saying that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over matters concerning POW's. It's as simple as that.

Also, keep in mind we only have judicial review because the Supreme Court said we do. They decided for themselves that they were the ultimate arbitor of what is and isn't Constititional. It was (and mainly IS) a unique concept in the world. I happen to agree with it, but it ain't in the Constitution.

One of the interesting points that comes up in any good Constitional Law class is this: ALL three branches have an obligation to determine what is and isn't Constitutional. It seems axiomatic that Congress will not pass laws it considers unconstitutional. Likewise, the President would be fully within his rights to veto a bill he considers unconstitional. (However, can the President choose not to ENFORCE a law which was passed over his veto that he considers unconstitional? EVERY President in recent times has done this.) Each branch has a right and obligation to come to conclusions on the Constitutionality of laws, and no one branch is "more right" than another. That is the essence of the system.

As Andrew Jackson (in my opinion, about the worst "great" President ever) said: "John Marshall [the Chief Justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it."


Edit: Oh, by the by, this'll never get out of committee.

[JesseJames]

Do I smell a grassroots movement or what?!

I do believe that we should ban special interests. They corrupt the very essence of a government 'by the people, for the people'. We are living in a plutocracy right now.
I thought Bush was going to tighten things up in Washington so I wasn't too concerned when he beat out Gore. Now I see him for what he really is - a dunderhead.
A rich-boy who has had a silverspoon in his mouth from day one.
I hoped that maybe, just maybe he could actually be a person of well-means who cared about the little guy.
My cynicism is complete. Thanks George.

And someone please educate me. Is Congress really the ones who vote THEMSELVES a pay raise???

[leftbanke7]

If this bill passes, I will willfully give up my US citizenship and move to a third world country. At least there I know my rights are being witheld by a ruthless dictator as opposed to elected officials.

[Plutoniq]

[B]
Like the Democrats are any better. We need to realize that both parties are different sides to the same coin. Their objective is governmental control of our lives.

I'm not saying the democrats are anywhere near perfect, but c'mon...... they've a lot better intent than the republicans. Have you checked social services latley (Ie. Public education, healthcare, welfare)? Bush has sucked the budget dry and shovelled it into a humiliating war effort. The economy is screwed, and all the while he wants more! Where does it end? Reagan, Bush Snr. & lil' Junior are a long line of screwed up republican presidents who care more about making the US military the most powerful in the world more than they do about the welfare of US citizens. That's the bottom line, keep the rich ever the more rich while drilling the poor deeper into the gutter. You think socialism can't peacefully exist with capitalism? Look at Australia, Holland, NZ, Germany........ Yes, higher income tax, but if you've ever visited these countries you'd see that their standard of living is much higher than that of the US. Hell, in Australia they actually pay you an income to go to University.

My point is, republicans only appeal to greedy rich f'king concervatives who care more about getting there presious tax cuts than they do about humanity. At least Democrats are a step closer in the right direction to a more socialist nation. It's a two party system, but one is definetley BETTER than the other.

[Chip NoVaMac]

To point one... It was important enough that an actual amendment to the constitution was passed that read:



AFAIK, this officially ended slavery.

This time we have a second opportunity to restrict rights if the current administration has its way....

[briankonar]

If this bill passes, I will willfully give up my US citizenship and move to a third world country. At least there I know my rights are being witheld by a ruthless dictator as opposed to elected officials.

its quite sad and depressing that our country has gone down the sh***er like it has....but i totally (except for the part about ELECTED officials) agree with you :rolleyes:

At least Democrats are a step closer in the right direction to a more socialist nation. It's a two party system, but one is definetley BETTER than the other.

it's the lesser of two evils debate. outside donations prevent the little guy's from getting involved, it's similar to the "you can have any color car you want as long as it's black" phenemona of the previous century. Except we get two color choices and they're both white :D .

[Dont Hurt Me]

I'm not saying the democrats are anywhere near perfect, but c'mon...... they've a lot better intent than the republicans. Have you checked social services latley (Ie. Public education, healthcare, welfare)? Bush has sucked the budget dry and shovelled it into a humiliating war effort. The economy is screwed, and all the while he wants more! Where does it end? Reagan, Bush Snr. & lil' Junior are a long line of screwed up republican presidents who care more about making the US military the most powerful in the world more than they do about the welfare of US citizens. That's the bottom line, keep the rich ever the more rich while drilling the poor deeper into the gutter. You think socialism can't peacefully exist with capitalism? Look at Australia, Holland, NZ, Germany........ Yes, higher income tax, but if you've ever visited these countries you'd see that their standard of living is much higher than that of the US. Hell, in Australia they actually pay you an income to go to University.

My point is, republicans only appeal to greedy rich f'king concervatives who care more about getting there presious tax cuts than they do about humanity. At least Democrats are a step closer in the right direction to a more socialist nation. It's a two party system, but one is definetley BETTER than the other.we dont need a socialist nation just as we dont need the corporations running the show as George wants. we need balance and common sense and Healthcare for all. then lets slap some term limits on the supreme court. 20 years sounds good.

[27407]

The idea behind life-terms when it comes to Supreme Court judicial appointments is that if a judge is concerned about the possibility of re-appointment to a seat, he or she will not make rulings based on impartial reason but instead may make decisions that are more likely to be deemed popular.

I think the solution to this would be to make it so that you can only be eligible for one term, period. That would raise some other complications though...

[Chip NoVaMac]

YES! GIVE THEM THE HEAVE!!

i don't know how i feel about this. can anyone give a little more explanation as to the actual contents of the web site (i'm lazy). would congress have the ability to veto only if a certain percentage are in agreement, or do they replace the supreme court entirely? i agree the supreme court is the average american's last line of defence against corporate america, but i also feel that a great majority of judges enforce their own interpretations of the law, (reducing minimum sentences for good behavior etc. or even showing mercy on parents who kill their children by putting them in insane asylums, etc, gay marriage is another can of worms which i believe the constitution should make legal if all men are created equal then equal rights for everyone).

The Electoral College is the way we 'elect" the president. it is the reason Bush is the president rather then Gore. Instead of each person getting a vote that counts, the state gets its number of representatives to vote for the "winner", regardless of the popular vote.

the issue being in close races like in 2000, the majority may not count. This may have been great when there was a greater disparity in the distribution of the country. And with the lack of mass communication that we have today. Yet in todays society, the popular vote should be the one that counts.

[Makosuke]

Ick. I repeat: Ick.

I think the current Supreme Court borders on corrupt or at the very least significantly "political"--the one thing it's not supposed to be. But we do have checks and balances in the government for a reason, and eliminating this one sounds like a boneheaded and rather frightening proposition--if you remove the only theoretically apolitical branch of the government, what the heck do you have left but bickering politicians?

On the other hand, judges serving for life may have logic behind it, but it seems to have worked out to being a bad idea--people live too long to give them that much power for that long. Maybe a 1 decade term with no hope for re-appointment (heck, prevent them from having any political position after they retire, just to make sure they're not involved in a popluarity contest). Besides, a specific term limit would prevent judges from, say, delaying their retirement until there's a presedent from the party they favor, so their replacement doesn't swing things away from the lean of their opinion (this has most definitely happened).

And here's another vote that the whole electoral college system is archaic and broken--in a country where we know the results of an election by the end of the night (excepting exceedingly close elections), why do we need people representing large groups?

Question: How do politicians get away with not only proposing, but actually passing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional? It happens on a regular basis (regardless of what party you favor), and these are supposed to be the people most fit to run our country.

[Foxer]

What follows is why I never, ever go to the Political Forum. I thought current events would be safe.


I'm not saying the democrats are anywhere near perfect, but c'mon...... they've a lot better intent than the republicans.
Say's who. I'm a staunch, money-donating member of the GOP and I've railed for hours and hours about the plight of the disadvantaged in this country and why no one will allow this nation to discuss it and what we can do about it.

Have you checked social services latley (Ie. Public education, healthcare, welfare)? Bush has sucked the budget dry and shovelled it into a humiliating war effort.
Bush passed the largest education budget in history. He just passed the biggest entitlement bonaza since LBJ. He's given the Democrats everything they wanted and more. All you can do is spit the same old lies and inuendo that you always do.[/QUOTE]

[About the "humiliating" war effort. Who's humiliated? We stand up, when no one else will, and remove a brutal dictator from power. A policy established by Bill Clinton. We will hand over the country to the Iraqis very soon (probably too soon). We took out another gangster regime in Afghanistan. All with much, much less loss of life than ANYONE predicted. Anyone with half an unbiased brain would be pround of what we've done, not humiliated. What other nation in history goes to war to liberate OTHER people?]


The economy is screwed, and all the while he wants more! Where does it end?

What economy are you talking about? The model socialist economies of Europe, I guess. The U.S. economy is going like proverbial gangbusters. All inidcators are better than Clinton's magic economy of 1996. Of course, you'd never know that by listening to the Democrats - the smae ones who savaged President-elect Bush for "talking down" the economy prior to his inauguration. Oh, by the way, we WERE in a recession then. Simply put, what is good for America is bad for Democrats.

Reagan, Bush Snr. & lil' Junior are a long line of screwed up republican presidents who care more about making the US military the most powerful in the world more than they do about the welfare of US citizens.
This statement means nothing. The President, any President, had better make sure the military is the strongest and best equipped inthe world. Why would we want something inferior?

That's the bottom line, keep the rich ever the more rich while drilling the poor deeper into the gutter.

Of course the rich get richer. I should hope so. I wish we could change the institutional racism and statism that keeps the poor in the "gutter." However, one party (not mine) keeps selling them a bill of goods that government is going to make everything better. Can anyone honestly tell me that the conditions in inner cities are any better today than before the Great Society? One day, if they ever get out of Teacher-union controlled public schools, the poor are going to wise up and I'd hate to be a Democrat when that happens.

You think socialism can't peacefully exist with capitalism?
Who said it can't. Not me. But who would want it? Socialism, statism, call it what you will, it doesn't work as well as market capitalsim.

Look at Australia, Holland, NZ, Germany........ Yes, higher income tax, but if you've ever visited these countries you'd see that their standard of living is much higher than that of the US. Hell, in Australia they actually pay you an income to go to University.
Standards of living are all lower in those countries. Check your statistics. Everyone being a little poorer does not make everyone richer.

My point is, republicans only appeal to greedy rich f'king concervatives who care more about getting there presious tax cuts than they do about humanity.

Insulting and mean spirited. I could say that Democrats rich f'king hypocrites care more about rewarding their corrupt interest group buddies, punishing the entrepenuer class and perpetuating the plight of the poor in a cycnical, racist attempt to maintain votes.

At least Democrats are a step closer in the right direction to a more socialist nation. It's a two party system, but one is definetley BETTER than the other.
yes, if you're looking for your worker's paradise, the Democrats are a better choice. God help us if you ever get it.

And now that I'm all worked up from shouting into the wind and trying to score political points on flippin' Apple Computer web board, I'm going out for a nice $100 dinner.

[numediaman]

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Foxer, that was great. You were kidding, right?

[Chip NoVaMac]

That's all we have today for the Rush Limbaugh show for today folks....

(sorry I could resist)

[pseudobrit]

What other nation in history goes to war to liberate OTHER people?

Germany liberated plenty of people a few decades ago.

What economy are you talking about? The model socialist economies of Europe, I guess. The U.S. economy is going like proverbial gangbusters.

Then what does it mean that the Euro is killing the dollar? Europe's economy must be going like gangbusters squared.

Simply put, what is good for America is bad for Democrats.

No, what's good for America is good for whoever's in power, regardless of party. It's been this way for a long time.

Can anyone honestly tell me that the conditions in inner cities are any better today than before the Great Society?

You don't know how bad poverty can be.

Enjoy your dinner.

[Neserk]

i think i'm going to be sick.


me first?

[Neserk]

i am not sure, but it seems that this is another attempt by conservatives to achieve what they can't through the law.

BINGO!!!!!!!!

[MrMacMan]

Okay...

One flaw with this bill...

Even if it passed --> it is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court would deem it so.

Therefore... this would need to be an amendment... which even the Republican Majority couldn't get.


Sorry.

This 'bill' is TOO simple and TOO dumb to ever get to the floor.

[MacRumorSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Plutoniq
I'm not saying the democrats are anywhere near perfect, but c'mon...... they've a lot better intent than the republicans. Have you checked social services latley (Ie. Public education, healthcare, welfare)? Bush has sucked the budget dry and shovelled it into a humiliating war effort. The economy is screwed, and all the while he wants more! Where does it end? Reagan, Bush Snr. & lil' Junior are a long line of screwed up republican presidents who care more about making the US military the most powerful in the world more than they do about the welfare of US citizens. That's the bottom line, keep the rich ever the more rich while drilling the poor deeper into the gutter. You think socialism can't peacefully exist with capitalism? Look at Australia, Holland, NZ, Germany........ Yes, higher income tax, but if you've ever visited these countries you'd see that their standard of living is much higher than that of the US. Hell, in Australia they actually pay you an income to go to University.

My point is, republicans only appeal to greedy rich f'king concervatives who care more about getting there presious tax cuts than they do about humanity. At least Democrats are a step closer in the right direction to a more socialist nation. It's a two party system, but one is definetley BETTER than the other.

I would love to respond to this but Foxer stole my thunder. Well said Foxer.

[numediaman]

While you two fight it out between fascism and socialism . . .

I think the rest of us can agree that this is another example of a Congressman putting together a bill knowing full well that it will never reach the floor. Then he can go back to his constituents and say he did something.

The Constitution is pretty clear about the checks and balances of the three branches of government. Congress can't pass a law nulling one branch.

[Neserk]

Okay...

One flaw with this bill...

Even if it passed --> it is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court would deem it so.

Therefore... this would need to be an amendment... which even the Republican Majority couldn't get.


Sorry.

This 'bill' is TOO simple and TOO dumb to ever get to the floor.

The only chance that bill would have would be if it required a 100% vote from the Congress.

[Frohickey]

I say, if they're going to push for this kind of garbage, liberals need to tack on a bit about it being ILLEGAL (and quite punishable) for senators to vote in favor of unconstitutional laws. But, then, who would determine what's constitutional? the supreme court would be stripped and powerless to do this.

paul

Here is Article III, Section 2. (Clause 2 is the pertinent clause).

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10) --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

As to the above quoted comment, senators are not the only ones that vote for laws, congresscritters (house of representatives) do so as well. And the president also passes or vetoes the law.

I kinda like your idea though. About making it illegal and punishable to vote for an unconstitutional law. I would make it...

It would be illegal for Congress to attempt to pass a law that is unconstitutional. It would be illegal for the President to sign a law that is unconstitutional. Illegal acts of Congress, or the President are considered Treason, and punishable by death. :)

[Frohickey]

The rumble you hear is the founding fathers turning over in their graves yet again (first time was after passage of the Patriot Act).

Actually, this is not the first time.

First time was probably during Lincoln's time, when he suspended habeas corpus. If only we know where the Founding Fathers are buried. We can hook their corpses up to a generator, and power the entire universe!

PATRIOT Act is not the first though for the Bush Administration... the first is the First Amendment Nullification Act, aka Campaign Finance Reform. :mad:

[mactastic]

PATRIOT Act is not the first though for the Bush Administration... the first is the First Amendment Nullification Act, aka Campaign Finance Reform.

Ah yes, the perverse idea that one person's speech is worth more than another person's. Yet another way you want to re-distribute power to the wealthy.

[Frohickey]

But would you fault the courts that felt that owning slaves wrong?
Or that the idea of inter-racial marriage was wrong?
Or the idea of separate but equal education wrong?
And what court cases decided any of these???

The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841) <-- okay, this is for illegal aliens (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/amistad_case.html)
Dred Scott vs Sandford 60 U.S. 393, (1856) <-- okay, this is a miscarriage of justice by the SCOTUS (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=60&page=393)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=388&page=1)
Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka, 344 U.S. 1 (1952) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=344&page=1)

As you can see, the SCOTUS is not always right, as can be read from the Dred Scott case. :p

[mactastic]

Sheesh, you certainly don't have to go back that far at all to see that SCOTUS has been wrong before. Just look at Bush v Gore! :D

[Frohickey]

So, there we have two of the three, handled by the very court we're arguing about. I'm sure the country would be much better if congress could have reversed these decisions.

on a sidenote, i agree that the life-terms on the court are wrong, it should be 8 or 10 year terms. Also, the supreme court is understaffed... i believe it can have up to 15 justices. Might be nice to have some diversity there.

And the electoral college, that's right out. antequated POS.

paul

Secondly. Here's my thought on why this bill will not (and should not) pass. Can anyone give a specific instance where this would have been useful? Has the supreme court ever done anything so outrageous as to get 2/3 of congress to oppose? Even roe v wade wasn't that controvercial-- a constitutional amendment to ban abortion has never been successful.

Yes, Congress reversed the one that I posted. ;) Via a constitutional amendment even!!!
I think that life terms are just fine. Also, adding 6 justices, is I think wrong, this is what FDR tried to do when SCOTUS was declaring lots of his New Deal programs as unconstitutional.
Keep the electoral college, if we throw out antiquated POSes, we'd be throwing out the BoR, circa 1791. Over my dead body. :p

[Frohickey]

did you hit the nail on the head or what, these guys on both sides are destroying our freedoms,libertys and way of life everyday. they both want to tell us what to do and when to do it and then send them our working dollars while they discover new ways to waste them. What we need to do for starters is outlaw partys period, and then business donations to candidates and that would clean up the mess.

Hmm... so your idea to to clamp down on the freedom of assembly, and 5th amendment guaranteed rights?!!! :mad:

I think what we need is to 'fertilize' the tree of liberty. ;)

[Frohickey]

One of the interesting points that comes up in any good Constitional Law class is this: ALL three branches have an obligation to determine what is and isn't Constitutional. It seems axiomatic that Congress will not pass laws it considers unconstitutional. Likewise, the President would be fully within his rights to veto a bill he considers unconstitional. (However, can the President choose not to ENFORCE a law which was passed over his veto that he considers unconstitional? EVERY President in recent times has done this.) Each branch has a right and obligation to come to conclusions on the Constitutionality of laws, and no one branch is "more right" than another. That is the essence of the system.


Yeah, and with regard to CFR, all 3 sides chose to look the other way! :mad:

[Frohickey]

I'm not saying the democrats are anywhere near perfect, but c'mon...... they've a lot better intent than the republicans.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis

Sorry, no dice. I don't care much for the "better intent" of the democrats.

[Frohickey]

The Electoral College is the way we 'elect" the president. it is the reason Bush is the president rather then Gore. Instead of each person getting a vote that counts, the state gets its number of representatives to vote for the "winner", regardless of the popular vote.

the issue being in close races like in 2000, the majority may not count. This may have been great when there was a greater disparity in the distribution of the country. And with the lack of mass communication that we have today. Yet in todays society, the popular vote should be the one that counts.

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

I disagree... take away the electoral college and the election would be decided by a few states in the union. Keep this going, and the other states might just decide to take their ball and go home instead.

The way the Electoral College is set up is that each state gets a certain number of votes, which is precisely the number of congresscritters + senators it sends to Congress. Then, depending on state law, electors vote for President depending on how the state voted. In most states (and the state's election law) the majority winner of a state gets ALL of the electoral votes. In some states (also specified in their election law), the electoral votes are divided up depending on the votes cast by the state residents.

So, to be elected President, you have to not only get a lot of votes, but you have to get them in most of the places as well.

If you think the last election was a doozy, its not. There have been several times within US history where the candidate that got the most electoral votes DID NOT get the most popular votes. For a doozy, you should see the one time that the electoral vote was tied! Then, you have the House of Representatives vote. If thats still a tie, then you have each State get one vote to choose a President, but you need 2/3rds of that!

So...
1) One candidate gets the most electoral votes, election done. If not, step2
2) Tied electoral votes, the HoR gets to vote. One candidates gets the most HoR votes, election done. If not, step3.
3) Each state gets one vote, 2/3rds must vote. One candidate gets the most state votes, election done. If not, step4.
4) Pack your bags, this country is done for.

[Frohickey]

Question: How do politicians get away with not only proposing, but actually passing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional? It happens on a regular basis (regardless of what party you favor), and these are supposed to be the people most fit to run our country.

Because people have very short memories and do not hold their politician's feet to the fire. If only, IF ONLY, we had people that call for their politician's head on a platter when they do this, this stuff would not happen. Politicians are like animals... they respond to political pain. :D

[Frohickey]

Ah yes, the perverse idea that one person's speech is worth more than another person's. Yet another way you want to re-distribute power to the wealthy.

One person's speech is worth more... if that speech stinks like a potbellied pig, no amount of money or makeup is gonna make it smell/look better. As to your misconceived notion that the republicans are the ones that are backed by a few big money donors, I point you to www.opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/topindivs.asp). Care to tell me the top 10 individual donors, and who they donated to?

I ran a spreadsheet of these top 100 individual donors to the Democrats, and after doing a running total, the amount the Republicans raised didn't even hold a candle. But, how is it then that Republicans have more campaign funds than Democrats? :eek: Could it be that there are more donors donating smaller sums of campaign contributions to Republicans than Democrats? How does that sit with your misconceived notion that the Democrats are the party of the people? Sure looks like the party of the elite to me!!! BIG MONEY ELITE DONORS donate overwhelmingly to the Democrats, but still the DNC raises less than the RNC... how do you reconcile this fact?

Sheesh, you certainly don't have to go back that far at all to see that SCOTUS has been wrong before. Just look at Bush v Gore!

Have you looked at the Bush v Gore (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-949) case at all?

I did, and I also followed the case as it was happening.

The gist of the case is that SCOTUS said that the few Florida counties that were recounting ballots had to follow Florida law for when they are supposed to be done counting. That is it. Florida Secretary of State followed Florida election law as to when the count/recount/re-recount had to be finished by. The varous counties knew this, it was written in election law. Then, the Florida Supreme Court got involved, and they chose to ignore Florida election law!!!

Even after the recounts, Bush still got more votes than Gore in Florida!


---------

http://www.skincell.org/yabbse/smilies/spank.gif

[Taft]

Have you looked at the Bush v Gore (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-949) case at all?

I did, and I also followed the case as it was happening.

The gist of the case is that SCOTUS said that the few Florida counties that were recounting ballots had to follow Florida law for when they are supposed to be done counting. That is it. Florida Secretary of State followed Florida election law as to when the count/recount/re-recount had to be finished by. The varous counties knew this, it was written in election law. Then, the Florida Supreme Court got involved, and they chose to ignore Florida election law!!!

Even after the recounts, Bush still got more votes than Gore in Florida!

Thats a rather liberal interpretation of the supreme court ruling. The US Supreme Court acknowledged that the situation was complicated, that the Florida Supreme Court was acting out of a want to properly tabulate the votes and that an action by that court was required to properly resolve the election results. Further, the US Supreme Court didn't necessarily disagree with the intent of the action of the Florida Supreme Court, but rather decided that the lower Court's proposed remedy contained recount procedures which were arbitrary and resulted in disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.

In the end, this meant that, while the Florida Supreme Court thought that a voter's intent could be legally ascertained from ambigious ballots, the US Supreme Court disagreed.

This hardly amounts to the Florida Supreme Court "ignoring Florida election law."

Also, your final statement is quite contested, so stop trying to pass it off as fact.

Taft

[Frohickey]

Also, your final statement is quite contested, so stop trying to pass it off as fact.

Is my final statement a fact, or is it fiction? A contested fact is still a fact. If someone said that the world is flat, and I say that the world is round, my statement is contested, but its still true.

Every recount that was done had Bush win the Florida election. That is fact.
CNN: Florida recount study: Bush still wins (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

One thing though, you have to hand it to the Democrats, they started the 2004 election way back in 2000 with the recount-contest-rhetoric tactic. We will get to see if this tactic works in a 8 months or so.

Personally, it was interesting watching the 2000 election unfold. Since I did not have a horse in the race, it was fun to watch.

[Taft]

Is my final statement a fact, or is it fiction? A contested fact is still a fact. If someone said that the world is flat, and I say that the world is round, my statement is contested, but its still true.

Every recount that was done had Bush win the Florida election. That is fact.
CNN: Florida recount study: Bush still wins (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

One thing though, you have to hand it to the Democrats, they started the 2004 election way back in 2000 with the recount-contest-rhetoric tactic. We will get to see if this tactic works in a 8 months or so.

Personally, it was interesting watching the 2000 election unfold. Since I did not have a horse in the race, it was fun to watch.

Counts by various news organizations (NYTimes, Washington Post) came out with different results. Also, there's this choice quote from the article you linked:

In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.

Instructive but not definitive.

Disputes have also been logged against various issues from absentee to military ballots which could have effected the count of that election.

I'm not trying to say that Gore should be president, but the 2000 election was hardly a clear victory for Bush. Many people try to paint the Florida count as a known quantity, when it really has been anything but.

Also, a fact is an observable real occurance or something believed to be true. So if two facts describe the same occurance in exactly opposite ways, are they both facts? Can 'Michigan was the 34th state' and 'Michigan was the 35th state' both be considered facts just because some people believe in one and other people believe in the other?

Taft

[Sayhey]

I disagree... take away the electoral college and the election would be decided by a few states in the union. Keep this going, and the other states might just decide to take their ball and go home instead.

The way the Electoral College is set up is that each state gets a certain number of votes, which is precisely the number of congresscritters + senators it sends to Congress. Then, depending on state law, electors vote for President depending on how the state voted. In most states (and the state's election law) the majority winner of a state gets ALL of the electoral votes. In some states (also specified in their election law), the electoral votes are divided up depending on the votes cast by the state residents.

So, to be elected President, you have to not only get a lot of votes, but you have to get them in most of the places as well.

If you think the last election was a doozy, its not. There have been several times within US history where the candidate that got the most electoral votes DID NOT get the most popular votes. For a doozy, you should see the one time that the electoral vote was tied! Then, you have the House of Representatives vote. If thats still a tie, then you have each State get one vote to choose a President, but you need 2/3rds of that!

So...
1) One candidate gets the most electoral votes, election done. If not, step2
2) Tied electoral votes, the HoR gets to vote. One candidates gets the most HoR votes, election done. If not, step3.
3) Each state gets one vote, 2/3rds must vote. One candidate gets the most state votes, election done. If not, step4.
4) Pack your bags, this country is done for.

Frohickey, you got it wrong. This is the section of the Constitution that outlines the procedure in the event of an electoral college tie. Notice the vote is done by State Delegations not by number of votes of individual House members. Step 2 and 3 are the same. Your confusion must be from reading the original language that was effective before the Twelfth Amendment. If we don't get a president or vice-president because of a tie (out going VP doesn't get a vote) in the Senate and a lack of a majority (tied delegations don't count) then the Speaker of the House would become President (Twentieth Amendment - Presidential Succession Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act).) Note that the Speaker of the House doesn't have to be an elected member of Congress so in the unlikely case of all of this occurring, whatever party controls the House after November's election could decide who will be President.

Amendment XII (1804)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolveupon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President—The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. emphasis added

US Constitution (http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm)

I would agree with Taft that your assertion that Bush would have won Florida if all the votes were counted is false. Take a look at this New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?011224ta_talk_hertzberg) article on the work of the consortium of eight newspapers that analyzed the Florida ballots.

It soon developed, however, that the news organizations had missed a crucial detail: if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had in fact gone forward, the circuit judge supervising it, Terry Lewis, probably would have directed the counting not only of "undervotes" (on which machines could detect no vote) but also of "overvotes" (on which machines detected markings for more than one candidate). The overvotes, according to the consortium's own numbers, would have yielded a hair-breadth victory for Gore.

In other words if the Supreme Court doesn't stop the process Gore becomes President. Which certainly explains the partisan and contradictory nature of their ruling in Bush v. Gore.

Your assertion about the Electoral College preventing a few states from deciding who is president just doesn't stack up to reality (those same states have the most electoral votes), but it does make it so we can elect a president who got fewer votes than an opponent. Around the world they don't call that democracy.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I still say in a national election add up every vote and the person with the most wins, we dont need the electoral college anymore. Even if someone is concentrating in those big states they still have to add up everyones vote. stop the darn games. put term limits on the Bench. Im trying to think of any job that hires you for life? so why should the supreme court have this? we are suppose to be a nation of majority rules but with the games the courts have been playing, and the games from the electoral college process its anything but majority rules. time to stop the games and get back to basics. who ever has the most votes wins period.

[Sayhey]

I still say in a national election add up every vote and the person with the most wins, we dont need the electoral college anymore. Even if someone is concentrating in those big states they still have to add up everyones vote. stop the darn games. put term limits on the Bench. Im trying to think of any job that hires you for life? so why should the supreme court have this? we are suppose to be a nation of majority rules but with the games the courts have been playing, and the games from the electoral college process its anything but majority rules. time to stop the games and get back to basics. who ever has the most votes wins period.

I'm with you on the electoral college. It is about time that we elect the two people who represent us all (President and Vice President) by the principle of one person - one vote and the majority wins. Not a complex idea and one recognized around the world.

I've concerns about terms for Supreme Court. The idea behind a lifetime appointment is to make the judiciary independent. If a justice must worry about his or her reelection to a term on the court then he or she must play political games to do so. I don't think such a system would work well. What might work is a one time appointment with a long term in office. Say a 12 - 15 year term that cannot be renewed. The trouble with this is that there have been a number of great justices that have served for an extremely long time (ie Douglas, Black, and Blackmun) and I for one would have hated to loose their wisdom in some very tough times. The idea of a law to overrule a independent judiciary destroys that independence. I would hate to think what our country would look like today without a Supreme Court willing to stand up against Segregation. If we would have had to wait for a Congress dominated by Strom Thurmond clones we would have never made past "separate but equal."

[Dont Hurt Me]

thats why i say a 1 term limit of say 20 or 25 years.

[Sayhey]

thats why i say a 1 term limit of say 20 or 25 years.

It might work, but how many justices would be effected by such a limit? On the Court right now I think only Renquist and Stevens would be limited out by a 25 year term. I'm still not seeing the great benefit from such a change.

[Dont Hurt Me]

a lifetime could be as many as 40 years or more, this would cut it in half.

[Neserk]

Even after the recounts, Bush still got more votes than Gore in Florida!


---------

http://www.skincell.org/yabbse/smilies/spank.gif

The ballots were flawed. Jews don't vote for people trying to convert them! And yet in highly Jewish areas Pat Robertson received way more votes than he should have (even he acknowledged it was so). That aside, I recall that Gore actually had more votes in Florida...

[Frohickey]

Frohickey, you got it wrong. This is the section of the Constitution that outlines the procedure in the event of an electoral college tie. Notice the vote is done by State Delegations not by number of votes of individual House members. Step 2 and 3 are the same.

I would agree with Taft that your assertion that Bush would have won Florida if all the votes were counted is false. Take a look at this New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?011224ta_talk_hertzberg) article on the work of the consortium of eight newspapers that analyzed the Florida ballots.

Your assertion about the Electoral College preventing a few states from deciding who is president just doesn't stack up to reality (those same states have the most electoral votes), but it does make it so we can elect a president who got fewer votes than an opponent. Around the world they don't call that democracy.

On the first point, if you read my post to mean that the individual House members and Senators are the ones that casts the electoral college votes, then then I must not have been clear enough. When I said "The way the Electoral College is set up is that each state gets a certain number of votes, which is precisely the number of congresscritters + senators it sends to Congress.", I meant that as the number of votes, not the voters themselves. So, for California, the electors that cast their votes for President DID NOT include Senatrix Boxer or Feinswine :p. Just the numerical amount is determined by the amount represented in Congress. That is what I meant, and that is what you also verified it to be.

In your New Yorker post, the sentence "That finding, it turned out, was that, no matter what standard or combination of standards is applied, Al Gore got a handful more votes than George W. Bush." is disingenuous on the part of the writer. Because, while it is accurate, it can lead to you believe something different. It is accurate that Al Gore got a handful more votes than GWBush. As in, if the 1st count had AlGore 2900, GWBush 3000, and the 2nd count was Algore 2950, GWBush 3025. AlGore got more in the recount, 50 more than before, GWBush got 25 more, less than the 50 AlGore got. But the above sentence could be taken to mean AlGore 3000, GWBush 2900, which is not the case at all. In the CNN article and the NewYorker article indicates that GWBush would have won, regardless. The NewYorker article even says "Faced with this conclusion, the consortium changed the question to who would have won if the original statewide recount had not been aborted. The reassuring answer to that question, again by a handful, was Bush."

The NewYorker article then hypothesizing what-if scenarios that would yield an AlGore victory, and it mentions the counting of "overvotes". Regardless of the name cachet (sp?) of the candidiates, each punched out chad is equal to another. So, if a PatBuchanan and AlGore chad are punched out, you cannot say that it was supposed to be an AlGore vote, and not a PatBuchanan vote. Same would be said with a PatBuchanan and GWBush chad. Besides, the above criteria would fall apart if there was an AlGore and GWBush chad. Overvotes must be tossed out. As should be undervotes.

As to your final point about the electoral college system and the US not being a democracy because of the way the President is chosen, just looking at the representation within Congress should answer your question for you.

A state always has 2 Senators, and at least one Congresscritter. In a hypothetical scenario, with every single US resident but 3 moving to one state, lets say Rhode Island. RI would have 386 Congresscritters, 2 Senators, for a total of 388 Electoral votes, while the other 49 states would have 147 Electoral votes. The winner of RI is elected President, but in Congress, RI cannot pass a single law without the approval of any of the 49 states. How is the US a democracy then if almost 100% of the US can be 'defeated' by 147 people?

The Founding Fathers were not fond of democracies (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/May-04-Sun-2003/opinion/21225710.html), they considered democracies as mob rule, not much better than the monarchy they just fought to get out of. Remember, the original Constitution wasn't meant to have the BillofRights. They had put in place safeguards for the country to not be a democracy. This is evident in the way Congress is composed, and the way the President is chosen.

In a democracy, the majority (>50%), can trample on the rights of the minority (<50%). The way the USA should work (no small thanks to the BoR), is that even an overwhelming majority (99.9%) cannot trample on the rights of the nanominority :) (0.00000001%) or even the one lone person. This is the beauty of the system, OUR system.

[Frohickey]

We are not a nation of majority rules. We have never been, and should never be a nation of majority rules.

Imagine a majority, lets say, the Christian right, unhampered by the BillofRights, forcing their religion on the rest? Not a pretty picture, eh?

But you say, that we have the BillofRights and the majority can't do that. Oh, but it can, if we are a nation of majority rules. The majority rules that the BillofRights is null and void, and off you go to get your wee-wee cut :eek: and worse.

WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLIC. The government is limited to powers that was assigned to it on the old piece of paper called the US Constitution. The rest of the power belongs to you and me, all of us, up until we amend the US Constitution granting more power to the government.

Unfortunately, what the Founding Fathers feared have come to pass, with the Bill of Rights. Hardly anyone reads the 9th and 10th Amendment anymore. Its gotten to the point that the only rights we have are whats written on the BoR, but that is not the true intent. The pieces of old paper are what limits government, but it has been turned around to limit people.

[Frohickey]

The ballots were flawed. Jews don't vote for people trying to convert them! And yet in highly Jewish areas Pat Robertson received way more votes than he should have (even he acknowledged it was so). That aside, I recall that Gore actually had more votes in Florida...

You could read Jewish people's minds? Did you learn that from a college level course? ;)

The only thing we have to gauge the voters intent is the ballots themselves.
If you say that the ballots are flawed, then how did the other people that voted in the election manage to vote correctly? Oh, its only partially flawed you say, so that not everyone can vote correctly with the ballots provided, you say. But the ballots were vetted by the state agency, and had been used in prior elections, do we get to do those election over as well?

[DavisBAnimal]

WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLIC. The government is limited to powers that was assigned to it on the old piece of paper called the US Constitution. The rest of the power belongs to you and me, all of us.


Then we should let the people - you and me - choose the president, not the government (ie an Electoral College of unelected voters).

Davis

[Neserk]

You could read Jewish people's minds? Did you learn that from a college level course? ;)


It is called (a) logic, and (b) I was in a synagogue for about 3 years. There is no way they would have voted for Pat Robertson.



The only thing we have to gauge the voters intent is the ballots themselves.
If you say that the ballots are flawed, then how did the other people that voted in the election manage to vote correctly? Oh, its only partially flawed you say, so that not everyone can vote correctly with the ballots provided, you say. But the ballots were vetted by the state agency, and had been used in prior elections, do we get to do those election over as well?


Did you see the ballots?

[job]

Then we should let the people - you and me - choose the president, not the government (ie an Electoral College of unelected voters).

Davis

We, as individuals are a fickle bunch. The founding fathers were fearful of an uneducated, wild mob rule, the very excess of democracy. Hence, the establishment of the Electoral College which they saw as a preventive measure against the excesses of rampant democracy.

Think about how people's opinions of leaders, and especially politicans, change. If we do away with the Electoral College, can we, as citizens take full responsibility for our actions if our opinion of the person changes and we desire to remove them from office (i.e. California?)

[Neserk]

Then we should let the people - you and me - choose the president, not the government (ie an Electoral College of unelected voters).

Davis


Even as a 13 year old I couldn't understand why anyone would think the Electoral College was a good idea... so my disdain for it goes back to before the whole Bush fiasco.

[Neserk]

We, as individuals are a fickle bunch. The founding fathers were fearful of an uneducated, wild mob rule, the very excess of democracy. Hence, the establishment of the Electoral College which they saw as a preventive measure against the excesses of rampant democracy.

Think about how people's opinions of leaders, and especially politicans, change. If we do away with the Electoral College, can we, as citizens take full responsibility for our actions if our opinion of the person changes and we desire to remove them from office (i.e. California?)


Actually, it is to prevent a state from fraudulant voting. (ie a state the size of CA or TX saying a larger number of their voters voted for a specific candidate than they actually did) Of course we have other means of protecting ourselves from that now.

[Sayhey]

On the first point, if you read my post to mean that the individual House members and Senators are the ones that casts the electoral college votes, then then I must not have been clear enough. When I said "The way the Electoral College is set up is that each state gets a certain number of votes, which is precisely the number of congresscritters + senators it sends to Congress.", I meant that as the number of votes, not the voters themselves. So, for California, the electors that cast their votes for President DID NOT include Senatrix Boxer or Feinswine :p. Just the numerical amount is determined by the amount represented in Congress. That is what I meant, and that is what you also verified it to be.

In your New Yorker post, the sentence "That finding, it turned out, was that, no matter what standard or combination of standards is applied, Al Gore got a handful more votes than George W. Bush." is disingenuous on the part of the writer. Because, while it is accurate, it can lead to you believe something different. It is accurate that Al Gore got a handful more votes than GWBush. As in, if the 1st count had AlGore 2900, GWBush 3000, and the 2nd count was Algore 2950, GWBush 3025. AlGore got more in the recount, 50 more than before, GWBush got 25 more, less than the 50 AlGore got. But the above sentence could be taken to mean AlGore 3000, GWBush 2900, which is not the case at all. In the CNN article and the NewYorker article indicates that GWBush would have won, regardless. The NewYorker article even says "Faced with this conclusion, the consortium changed the question to who would have won if the original statewide recount had not been aborted. The reassuring answer to that question, again by a handful, was Bush."

The NewYorker article then hypothesizing what-if scenarios that would yield an AlGore victory, and it mentions the counting of "overvotes". Regardless of the name cachet (sp?) of the candidiates, each punched out chad is equal to another. So, if a PatBuchanan and AlGore chad are punched out, you cannot say that it was supposed to be an AlGore vote, and not a PatBuchanan vote. Same would be said with a PatBuchanan and GWBush chad. Besides, the above criteria would fall apart if there was an AlGore and GWBush chad. Overvotes must be tossed out. As should be undervotes.

As to your final point about the electoral college system and the US not being a democracy because of the way the President is chosen, just looking at the representation within Congress should answer your question for you.

A state always has 2 Senators, and at least one Congresscritter. In a hypothetical scenario, with every single US resident but 3 moving to one state, lets say Rhode Island. RI would have 386 Congresscritters, 2 Senators, for a total of 388 Electoral votes, while the other 49 states would have 147 Electoral votes. The winner of RI is elected President, but in Congress, RI cannot pass a single law without the approval of any of the 49 states. How is the US a democracy then if almost 100% of the US can be 'defeated' by 147 people?

The Founding Fathers were not fond of democracies (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/May-04-Sun-2003/opinion/21225710.html), they considered democracies as mob rule, not much better than the monarchy they just fought to get out of. Remember, the original Constitution wasn't meant to have the BillofRights. They had put in place safeguards for the country to not be a democracy. This is evident in the way Congress is composed, and the way the President is chosen.

In a democracy, the majority (>50%), can trample on the rights of the minority (<50%). The way the USA should work (no small thanks to the BoR), is that even an overwhelming majority (99.9%) cannot trample on the rights of the nanominority :) (0.00000001%) or even the one lone person. This is the beauty of the system, OUR system.

Sorry, Frohickey, I wasn't clear enough. My point was that your points 2 and 3 in the original post are wrong. They are all mixed up in the same process. Meaning that if there is an electoral vote tie, there is no vote by the House first by individual members, it is by State delegation from the beginning. As I said if there is a tie in a state delegation, then its vote does not count. A majority of delegations is necessary (26 votes nowadays) to elect a President this way. And by the way, I'm very well aware of who the electors are.

I think you need to reread the New Yorker article because the point of it is that if the process that was going on when the Supreme Court's intervention took place was allowed to continue and the overcounts were counted (as per normal practice) then Gore would have won. It is also clear that the majority of folks in Florida tried to vote for Gore, but that is a whole other discussion. The overall point is that many, many folks have very good reason to believe that Gore won the state if the votes had been counted correctly.

On the electoral college I didn't have a question. I made a simple statement that it is undemocratic to elect someone who receives less votes that someone else. It is a system (the electoral college) that needs to be eliminated. While you are right to talk about how the founding fathers had a distrust of "too much democracy" it is also true they built safeguards for slaveowners to have tremendous power in the system and stop any changes to that system. Thank goodness we have moved on. Now it is time we learn from the undemocratic outcome in 2000 and change the constitution so it never happens again.

[Mac|caM]

There are several bills kind of like this in Congress right now. They all ban the federal courts from ruling on issues involving gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance. ALL of the supporters of these bills are ultra-conservative. The fact that courts decide on important issues like these (and any issue, for that matter) is one of the things that makes our Constitution work so well. Forget "judicial activism" or "judicial tyranny" as some call it– we need to worry about Congressional tyranny!

[Mac|caM]

Even as a 13 year old I couldn't understand why anyone would think the Electoral College was a good idea... so my disdain for it goes back to before the whole Bush fiasco.

The Electoral College is an old remnant from the US's early history. It was used because info didn't travel fast back then, and counting the votes of the relatively few people in the Electoral College was easier than counting every single vote of the people, and took a lot less time. Now, with the Internet and such, it is very outdated.

[Neserk]

The Electoral College is an old remnant from the US's early history. It was used because info didn't travel fast back then, and counting the votes of the relatively few people in the Electoral College was easier than counting every single vote of the people, and took a lot less time. Now, with the Internet and such, it is very outdated.


Interesting. I don't remember that. But it has been a while since 7th grade ;)

[MacRumorSkeptic]

Without the electoral college politicians would focus all their attention on the heavily populated states. The smaller states would eventually feel neglected thus having no desire to remain in the union.

[numediaman]

The original constitution only says this about the election of the President:

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The 12th Amendment added more details.

As you can see, there is no direct election of the President -- the founding fathers apparently did not like the idea of direct democracy.

Because of this, I think the electoral college is outdated. Yes, I understand and sympathize with the idea that small states might lose out when candidates campaign. But their vote would still count as "one". Many people outside of the U.S. have a hard time buying the idea that the U.S. is a model of democracy when we don't even get to vote for President (we vote for the person who will vote).

Concerning the statement above: that's the way I feel now, and I live in a big state. Why should we have a system where people go to California to raise money, but don't campaign there?

[DavisBAnimal]

Without the electoral college politicians would focus all their attention on the heavily populated states. The smaller states would eventually feel neglected thus having no desire to remain in the union.

With the way things are now, the only states getting attention from people running for President are the "swing states" - those states with a potential to go one way or the other. The result is, as mentioned, no campainging in California, Texas, New York, Vermont, Wyoming, etc. etc. - a mix of big and small. The campaign is going to be centered in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

If we don't drop the college we should at least divide the delegates in proportion to the votes - if a state goes 50-40-10 Kerry-Bush-Nader and has 10 delegates, Kerry should nab 5, Bush 4, and Nader 1. That way you'd encourage a campaign presence in all the states, and elminate the "spoiler" argument of third-party candidates.

Davis

[Neserk]

Without the electoral college politicians would focus all their attention on the heavily populated states. The smaller states would eventually feel neglected thus having no desire to remain in the union.


They already ignore smaller states ;) And it seems unlikely they would want to cede from the union...

[Sayhey]

Without the electoral college politicians would focus all their attention on the heavily populated states. The smaller states would eventually feel neglected thus having no desire to remain in the union.

If you want to make sure politicians campaign in small states, then let's change the campaign laws to make it a part of qualifying for matching funds. There is no need to count a vote in Wyoming as worth more than a vote in California in order for rural states to get attention.

The dirty little secret behind the electoral college is that it was part of the system of compromise that gave slave owners, whose "property" could not vote yet counted for three-fifths of a person for determining numbers of electors, the lock on political power. Well, that lock was "picked" and the system destroyed in the 1860s, but we still have this ugly remnant around to bedevil our wishes from time to time.

[mactastic]

Hmmm.... sounds like the Electoral College could be construed as a RACIST LAW kinda like some of those who support the RKBA like to compare gun control laws to. So I wonder, why would that logic support the repeal of gun control laws because of their racist beginnings, yet be so against the electoral college whose beginings can be traced to racism just as easily....

[Sayhey]

Hmmm.... sounds like the Electoral College could be construed as a RACIST LAW kinda like some of those who support the RKBA like to compare gun control laws to. So I wonder, why would that logic support the repeal of gun control laws because of their racist beginnings, yet be so against the electoral college whose beginings can be traced to racism just as easily....

I know you know mac, but let me state the obvious. Many of the folks who complain about the racist origins of gun control laws would oppose any law that touches on the ability to use guns if it was handed down from Mt. Sinai and blessed by every civil rights organization in history. It is an interesting contradiction though, isn’t it?

[mactastic]

It is an interesting contradiction though, isn’t it?

Yeah, kinda like the contradiction that says if the government would stop acting like our mommy and trust us we'd all be wonderful libertarian citizens who would watch out for others and donate enough to aleviate poverty; yet we must all have the right to be armed because you just can't trust people.... :D

[Frohickey]

Sorry, Frohickey, I wasn't clear enough. My point was that your points 2 and 3 in the original post are wrong. They are all mixed up in the same process. Meaning that if there is an electoral vote tie, there is no vote by the House first by individual members, it is by State delegation from the beginning. As I said if there is a tie in a state delegation, then its vote does not count. A majority of delegations is necessary (26 votes nowadays) to elect a President this way. And by the way, I'm very well aware of who the electors are.

I think you need to reread the New Yorker article because the point of it is that if the process that was going on when the Supreme Court's intervention took place was allowed to continue and the overcounts were counted (as per normal practice) then Gore would have won. It is also clear that the majority of folks in Florida tried to vote for Gore, but that is a whole other discussion. The overall point is that many, many folks have very good reason to believe that Gore won the state if the votes had been counted correctly.

On the electoral college I didn't have a question. I made a simple statement that it is undemocratic to elect someone who receives less votes that someone else. It is a system (the electoral college) that needs to be eliminated. While you are right to talk about how the founding fathers had a distrust of "too much democracy" it is also true they built safeguards for slaveowners to have tremendous power in the system and stop any changes to that system. Thank goodness we have moved on. Now it is time we learn from the undemocratic outcome in 2000 and change the constitution so it never happens again.

Okay, here is the way the EC works (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm) in a tie. I had separated the HoR and State votes to 2 steps, but the HoR is involved too.

In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
So, in Step 2, you need 435+50 votes. Still, in that scenario, you have 50 states that vote.

I read and re-read the New Yorker article. Especially that part about the overvotes and undervote counting. That was really the meat of the article. I disagree. How could you count overvotes where two holes are punched out? Each punch is equally invalid, you cannot assign Gore/Buchanan to Gore instead of Buchanan. You cannot assinged Bush/Buchanan to Bush instead of Buchanan. What do you do when you see a Bush/Gore?

My comment about the EC is still valid. And when you say that the FF put in place mechanisms for 'slaveowners', that should really be property owners. Using 'slaveowners' is a ploy to cloud the issue. Remember the quote about how a democracy lasts only until the electorate figures out how to get bennies from the treasury?

[Frohickey]

Because of this, I think the electoral college is outdated. Yes, I understand and sympathize with the idea that small states might lose out when candidates campaign. But their vote would still count as "one". Many people outside of the U.S. have a hard time buying the idea that the U.S. is a model of democracy when we don't even get to vote for President (we vote for the person who will vote).

Concerning the statement above: that's the way I feel now, and I live in a big state. Why should we have a system where people go to California to raise money, but don't campaign there?

I think the confusion and disdain for the EC comes from the mistaken idea that the electors are a fixed group.

The number of electors are a fixed number, but the group and the way it votes depends on the outcome of the election.
In states except Maine and Nebraska, if the majority of the people voted Democrat, the electors for that state is picked from the Democrat party in the state. If the majority of the people voted Republican, the electors for that state are picked from the Republican party in that state. So the electors themselves, the faces, the way they vote, is different and follows the way the general election outcome is. Either way, the number is the HoR representation+2.

If you think about it, the 'votes' the electors cast is largely symbolic. Symbolic in that the electors are voting for president, but since the choice of electors is made depending on the election...

[numediaman]

I think the confusion and disdain for the EC comes from the mistaken idea that the electors are a fixed group.

The number of electors are a fixed number, but the group and the way it votes depends on the outcome of the election.
In states except Maine and Nebraska, if the majority of the people voted Democrat, the electors for that state is picked from the Democrat party in the state. If the majority of the people voted Republican, the electors for that state are picked from the Republican party in that state. So the electors themselves, the faces, the way they vote, is different and follows the way the general election outcome is. Either way, the number is the HoR representation+2.

If you think about it, the 'votes' the electors cast is largely symbolic. Symbolic in that the electors are voting for president, but since the choice of electors is made depending on the election...

I think not. It is the electors who directly elect the President. The people do not. The citizens of the U.S. voted this way in 2000: Gore 50,996,116, Bush 50,456,169. But Bush is President. So how then is the electorial vote symbolic?

Take any state: in Alabama, 42% of the electorate chose Gore, but 100% of the electors voted for Bush. How is this merely a symbolic vote? In California, 42% of the electorate chose Bush, but 100% of the electors voted for Gore. How was that a symbolic vote?

The "popular" vote is "symbolic" since the winner is not determined by the candidate that gets the most votes. If you vote for a candidate that does not win your state your vote is negated completely.

The electoral college is anti-democratic and should abolished.

[Sayhey]

Okay, here is the way the EC works (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm) in a tie. I had separated the HoR and State votes to 2 steps, but the HoR is involved too.


So, in Step 2, you need 435+50 votes. Still, in that scenario, you have 50 states that vote.

I read and re-read the New Yorker article. Especially that part about the overvotes and undervote counting. That was really the meat of the article. I disagree. How could you count overvotes where two holes are punched out? Each punch is equally invalid, you cannot assign Gore/Buchanan to Gore instead of Buchanan. You cannot assinged Bush/Buchanan to Bush instead of Buchanan. What do you do when you see a Bush/Gore?

My comment about the EC is still valid. And when you say that the FF put in place mechanisms for 'slaveowners', that should really be property owners. Using 'slaveowners' is a ploy to cloud the issue. Remember the quote about how a democracy lasts only until the electorate figures out how to get bennies from the treasury?

Frohickey,

whoa! slaveowners are just "property owners"? Do I read you right? Do you think the Founding Fathers were just protecting the property interests of the Slaveholders class of the Southern States? Those "property" interests were real human beings. They also were, as I stated earlier, as a slave counted for three-fifths of a person for purposes of determining the number of electoral college votes. This gave the slave owners considerable more votes in the electoral college than their northern counterparts got from each vote cast. My point is that there was a very racist character to the construction of the electoral college that is not often talked about. I stand by that and can't understand how you can seemingly reduce this to a question of property rights.

As to the Florida vote we can go round and round, but I think I've made my point that there are substantial number of folks who have very good reason to look at the count of votes underway at the time of the Supreme Court intervened and see a Gore victory without that intervention. Overvotes are counted if in looking at a ballot it can be determined what the intent of the voter was. You may not like the process of the recount, but that is what the process was and what it was in recounts before 2000.

Around the process of a vote in the event of an Electoral College tie, it is clear you don't understand this area of the Constitution. There is no vote of 435 + 50. It is simple, each state delegation votes with one vote per state. 26 votes are needed to elect a President in this manner. There is no vote of House members as individual members other than within each delegation to determine the vote of the delegation.

[Frohickey]

I think not. It is the electors who directly elect the President. The people do not. The citizens of the U.S. voted this way in 2000: Gore 50,996,116, Bush 50,456,169. But Bush is President. So how then is the electorial vote symbolic?

Take any state: in Alabama, 42% of the electorate chose Gore, but 100% of the electors voted for Bush. How is this merely a symbolic vote? In California, 42% of the electorate chose Bush, but 100% of the electors voted for Gore. How was that a symbolic vote?

The "popular" vote is "symbolic" since the winner is not determined by the candidate that gets the most votes. If you vote for a candidate that does not win your state your vote is negated completely.

The electoral college is anti-democratic and should abolished.

You need to break the votes per state, and the electors from each state votes the way the election in the state went. So, if Texas has 50,000 people, and 25,001 people voted for Bush, all of Texas' electoral votes go to Bush. If California has 100,000 votes, and 50,001 voted for Gore, all of California's electoral votes go to Gore. Only in certain states is it NOT winner take all.

Most states have chosen to have their electoral votes be done as a block. Some states have chosen the other route, Maine and Nebraska, I believe.

Being anti-democratic does not necessarily mean its bad.

One example I hear often is "A democracy is 3 wolves, and 1 sheep deciding on whats for dinner." Democracy is great when you are a wolf. Not good if you are the sheep.

[numediaman]

You need to break the votes per state, and the electors from each state votes the way the election in the state went. So, if Texas has 50,000 people, and 25,001 people voted for Bush, all of Texas' electoral votes go to Bush. If California has 100,000 votes, and 50,001 voted for Gore, all of California's electoral votes go to Gore. Only in certain states is it NOT winner take all.

Most states have chosen to have their electoral votes be done as a block. Some states have chosen the other route, Maine and Nebraska, I believe.

Being anti-democratic does not necessarily mean its bad.

One example I hear often is "A democracy is 3 wolves, and 1 sheep deciding on whats for dinner." Democracy is great when you are a wolf. Not good if you are the sheep.

Why are you trying to explain the electoral college? I get it! It's winner take all -- in other words, totally undemocratic. If one candidate wins in one state by a million votes, but another by one, that candidate could still lose the election. I get it!

As for your views that being anti-democratic is not necessarily bad . . . I have one question, do you work for the White House?

[Frohickey]

Frohickey,

whoa! slaveowners are just "property owners"? Do I read you right? Do you think the Founding Fathers were just protecting the property interests of the Slaveholders class of the Southern States? Those "property" interests were real human beings. They also were, as I stated earlier, as a slave counted for three-fifths of a person for purposes of determining the number of electoral college votes. This gave the slave owners considerable more votes in the electoral college than their northern counterparts got from each vote cast. My point is that there was a very racist character to the construction of the electoral college that is not often talked about. I stand by that and can't understand how you can seemingly reduce this to a question of property rights.

As to the Florida vote we can go round and round, but I think I've made my point that there are substantial number of folks who have very good reason to look at the count of votes underway at the time of the Supreme Court intervened and see a Gore victory without that intervention. Overvotes are counted if in looking at a ballot it can be determined what the intent of the voter was. You may not like the process of the recount, but that is what the process was and what it was in recounts before 2000.

Around the process of a vote in the event of an Electoral College tie, it is clear you don't understand this area of the Constitution. There is no vote of 435 + 50. It is simple, each state delegation votes with one vote per state. 26 votes are needed to elect a President in this manner. There is no vote of House members as individual members other than within each delegation to determine the vote of the delegation.

What I'm saying is that using the word 'slaveowner' is a tactic to appeal to emotionalism. Sure, slaveowners are also property owners, but not all property owners are slaveowners. There is the distinction. By using the word 'slaveowner' to describe the beginnings of the country is disingenuous, and inaccurate.

I do not see the racist character to the construction of the electoral college. I see it as a way that the minorities still has their voices heard.

"In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office." - http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. - 12th Amendment.

The way I read it...
1 (bold) - the one that gets the most electoral votes wins, in case of a tie
2 (bold) - House of Representatives choose a President among the top 3 candidates, and...
2.5 (red) - States vote, 2/3rds for a quorum, majority required...

What I'm unclear of is do the House of Representatives choose/vote by ballot, as indicated above, the President?
Or do the States choose/vote for the President?

Does the House of Representatives choose, lets say, they choose Bush, but after that, the States get to vote 'Yes' or 'No' to Bush?

Or does the House of Representatives choose, lets say, the 3 top candidates of electoral votes, and the States vote which one of the 3? But if the States vote, whats the purpose of the House of Representatives then, since the 3 top candidates were picked by the Electoral College? Makes the House of Representatives unnecessary in this scenario.

I count 3 bodies that voted, Electoral College, House of Representatives, and finally the States.

[Frohickey]

Why are you trying to explain the electoral college? I get it! It's winner take all -- in other words, totally undemocratic. If one candidate wins in one state by a million votes, but another by one, that candidate could still lose the election. I get it!

As for your views that being anti-democratic is not necessarily bad . . . I have one question, do you work for the White House?

Nope. That would be a pay cut for me, so much work, not enough pay.

Would be nice to be Supreme Court Justice though. :p

[Sayhey]

Frohickey,

it is not an appeal to emotionalism. The property that is particular to slaveholders is not the same as any other property. Only slaves counted for three-fifths of a person in determining how many representatives and how many electors each state would receive. The electoral college was a way in which this distortion of electoral strength by slaveholding states was magnified. Simple fact. It has nothing to do with other property rights.

I will try to explain the procedure around electoral college ties one more time. The states do not vote. The delegations of the House of Representatives vote with each state delegation getting one vote. That means for example California and South Dakota delegations both have one vote, although South Dakota has one representative and California has fifty-three. There must be a quorum of two-thirds of the state delegations present (at least one member) for the vote to take place and it takes a majority of 50 votes (meaning 26) to win the election. There are no votes by individual House members, except in determining which way their state delegation will cast its one vote. Tied delegations do not cast a vote and only one ballot is taken. If no one gets the required 26 votes then it passes to the Senate to elect the vice-president (who would then become the President.) In the case of a tie in the Senate (the outgoing VP does not vote - although it has never happened and Cheney might try to break a tie) it would mean that it would fall to the Speaker of the House to be the new President.

This all may seem very obscure, and it is very unlikely, but if Kerry carries all the states that Gore did last time plus New Hampshire and either West Virginia or Nevada then we have a tie.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey,

it is not an appeal to emotionalism. The property that is particular to slaveholders is not the same as any other property. Only slaves counted for three-fifths of a person in determining how many representatives and how many electors each state would receive. The electoral college was a way in which this distortion of electoral strength by slaveholding states was magnified. Simple fact. It has nothing to do with other property rights.

I will try to explain the procedure around electoral college ties one more time. The states do not vote. The delegations of the House of Representatives vote with each state delegation getting one vote. That means for example California and South Dakota delegations both have one vote, although South Dakota has one representative and California has fifty-three. There must be a quorum of two-thirds of the state delegations present (at least one member) for the vote to take place and it takes a majority of 50 votes (meaning 26) to win the election. There are no votes by individual House members, except in determining which way their state delegation will cast its one vote. Tied delegations do not cast a vote and only one ballot is taken. If no one gets the required 26 votes then it passes to the Senate to elect the vice-president (who would then become the President.) In the case of a tie in the Senate (the outgoing VP does not vote - although it has never happened and Cheney might try to break a tie) it would mean that it would fall to the Speaker of the House to be the new President.

This all may seem very obscure, and it is very unlikely, but if Kerry carries all the states that Gore did last time plus New Hampshire and either West Virginia or Nevada then we have a tie.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

[Sayhey]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

You're welcome.