Senator Hillary Clinton has promised to introduce in the Senate a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.…
Article comments
26 - bliffle
"...Defense of Marriage Amendment would not change the basic structure of the government."
Is this a Constitutional requirement for amending the constitution? Where did you read that in the constitution?
Or is this just something you invented ad libitum to attempt justifying your hysterical outburst against Hillary? Did Ann Coulter infect you with some disease in an (unreported) personal encounter?
27 - moonraven
It's one PERSON, one vote, misogynist pig.
28 - troll
good point...my apologies to all for my insensitivity and misogynist failings
29 - Lee Richards
Dave,
Are you sure it's quite logical and reasonable to defend the position that it's treason to "change the basic structure of the government" through the legal amendment process, just because you disagree with the amendment?
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to change the basic structure of the government.
30 - moonraven
I cannot believe that someone actually mentioned LOGICAL and Dave Nalle in the same sentence!
31 - Doug Hunter
When do I get to vote to take rich people's money away and give it to myself?
32 - Dave Nalle
Are you sure it's quite logical and reasonable to defend the position that it's treason to "change the basic structure of the government" through the legal amendment process, just because you disagree with the amendment?
Probably not. But I inherently oppose any amendment which would do away with basic protections for the rights of minorities, which this amendment would.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to change the basic structure of the government.
No, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee protection of the rights of states and individuals so that the various state legislatures would ratify the Constitution. They make no institutional changes to the basic structure of the government or to the electoral process.
Dave
33 - Dave Nalle
When do I get to vote to take rich people's money away and give it to myself?
In 2008, assuming you're a trial lawyer or a labor organizer.
Dave
34 - jaz
does that mean we get to go back to the VP being the person with the second highest electoral vote count?
cuz changing that did alter the structure
(as stated earlier, i'm for it...MUCH better than both coming from the same Party like we have now)
35 - Dave Nalle
I'd sure support that, Jaz. You clearly would to. If we look back to the one time it actually happened - Adams/Jefferson - the results were generally pretty positive for the country.
However, I don't think that was a fundamental change in the structure of the government. Things like getting rid of the Senate - as was proposed earlier - or this amendment to get rid of the electoral college are much more profound and dangerous.
Dave
36 - Lee Richards
#32: So, if the Bill of Rights was abolished you can foresee no negative institutional changes to the basic structure of the government occuring at all?
37 - moonraven
The Bush Admistration has already eliminated much of the Bill of Rights anyway.
Ammendments I, IV, V, VI and VIII are already history. That's half of the ten.
And t doesn't seemtobother you gringosone bit....
38 - Dave Nalle
Lee, where do you get that out of anything I wrote? The fact that I understand the reason for the existence of the Bill of Rights doesn't mean I oppose it.
But the key thing is that the rights in the Bill of Rights do NOT originate in the Bill of Rights. They exist independent of it and pre-date the Constitution. The Bill of Rights merely exists to codify and reiterate them so they won't get glossed over. If anything the basic rights reflected in the Bill of Rights trump the entire Constitution.
Dave
39 - moonraven
Hmmm. Is that why they cancelled the right of habeas corpus--that had been with us in the western world since the Magna Carta of King John?
You think you have that right, Nalle. Go to the airport wearing a tee shirt with I love Austin in Arabic letters on it, and tell the security folks that you were born in Lebanon.
Then, at least we will never hear from your demented sorry ass again....
40 - Dave Nalle
Last I checked the right of habeas corpus was still intact for US citizens.
Whenever I fly internationally my birthplace is on my passport and no one has raised an eyebrow so far.
How's the habeas corpus in Mexico, btw?
Dave
41 - Clavos
How's the habeas corpus in Mexico, btw?
It doesn't exist whenever the Procuraduria (AG) doesn't want it to.
42 - moonraven
Dave, Wrong--You can be declared an "enemy combatant" even though you are a US citizen--check it out--and no habeas corpus. Just bye bye [Edited] Dave and Buenos Días Guatanamo....
What about that arabic tee shirt?
In Mexico not only do we have habeas corpus--we have its more sophisticated version--which is also the case throughout Latin America--called AMPARO. If you get an amparo they cannot even arrest you.
But you KNEW that, of course--since you are an expert on Latin America...
43 - Charles
Moonraven, although you are right that you can be declared an enemy combatant even if you are a US citizen, you are wrong in stating you do not have the right of habeus corpus. The idea that the military commissions act stripped rights from Americans is a lie pushed by the liberal media. See Here, Here, and Here.
44 - Michael J. West
Charles, I read the blog entries you linked to in #43. And they ALMOST hold water...but what about Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamdi? Those were two native-born American citizens who were held without charge, without access to counsel, and without the right to seek writs of Habeas Corpus - the former being Habeas Corpus - Hamdi for over two years, Padilla for three and a half.
You are correct if you mean that Moonraven has not been stripped of the rights of Habeas Corpus, or that ALL Americans have been stripped of that right, but since 2001, at least two Americans HAVE. And that's fact.
45 - moonraven
Charles posted links to HIMSELF and the site, The Conservative Right.
Give us a break.
Show us the text of the law that contradicts what I said.
THAT would be considered a legitimate SOURCE of INFORMATION.
An opinion site--where you are trying to promote YOURSELF, is not a source of anything but PROPAGANDA.
46 - Clavos
Interesting point about Charles' links, mr.
They're reminescent of your constant citing of opinion and propaganda sites like venezuelanalysis and commondreams as "legitimate sources of information."
47 - moonraven
I have never cited SITES. I have occasionally RECOMMENDED sites for folks interested in reading about topics from a PROGRESSIVE slant.
And I have occasionally cited articles on those sites which have been reprinted from other venues.
You have cited ONLY The Miami Herald, which is so under the thumb of the Miami Mafia that it was forced to reinstate reporters who had been fired for taking money from the MM and from the US government to write propaganda against Venezuela and Cuba.
Waaaayyyyy big difference--and the ususal bogus reasoning from Clavos.
48 - JulieL
"My advice to Maryland voters, stay home on election day. Your votes will no longer matter. The Maryland legislature has effectively nullified its residents votes with this bill. If a candidate were to receive enough votes nationwide he (or she) would receive all of Maryland's electoral votes, even if the voters of Maryland voted overwhelmingly for that persons opponent."
This simply isn't true. The bill in Maryland (and in all other states where it has been proposed) would only go into effect once enough states (who together possess the majority of the electoral votes - 270)have enacted identical legislation. Until this happens, Maryland will continue to award all of its electoral votes like any other state.
49 - Clavos
I have never cited SITES.
Hairsplitting obfuscation. You admit you have cited articles from those sites and recommended the sites themselves as sources.
And I have cited MUCH more than The Miami Herald; including the NYT, WaPO, WSJ, several Latino sites (in Mexico and Venezuela), The Guardian, The Economist, Times of London, several Aussie sites, EVEN venezuelanalysis (on one occasion), etc., etc.
Once again, you lie.
50 - moonraven
Clavos,
Even if I lied in every post from here till doomsday I would still be morally superior to you.
Lying doesn't happen to be my thing.
[Personal attack deleted]
51 - Clavos
Sticking to pattern still eh mr?
You can't refute the truth of my comment, so you fall back on the ol' non sequitur ad hominem...
52 - moonraven
Non sequitur--no. Everything follows absolutely linearly from your comments.
I have already indicated that you do not qualify as an ad hominem target--and why.
53 - Clavos
More BS and no response.
54 - Dave Nalle
Charles posted links to HIMSELF and the site, The Conservative Right.
Give us a break.
Show us the text of the law that contradicts what I said.
THAT would be considered a legitimate SOURCE of INFORMATION.
Once again you're being incredibly deceptive. The article of his own which Charles links to includes the text of the law you're asking for and his analysis of it, as well as text directly from the Geneva Convention which is relevant to the issue. It may be his analysis and opinion of what the documents mean, but the original source material is there for everyone - apparently except you - to see.
The other two articles are much the same, and as you failed to notice, they are also by Charles. They are again, point by point analyses of the source documents to dispute claims about the MCA in articles published in other media. And frankly he makes a convincing case based on the original documents.
I've done a similar analysis of the MCA - wrote it when it first passed. I never published it, but if you like I can make it into an article and publish it here on BC. I'm sure you'd have some fun with it.
Dave
55 - Wayne
It is unquestionably true -- that a constitutional amendment, proposed, can be treasonous. The exact same concerns were expressed when debating the 14th -- because you cannot constitutionally amend the constitution with an amendment that changes the form of government that is guaranteed and that all officers are sworn to uphold.
Consider the following, in convention, Monday, July 23, 1787:
- Resoln 18.[17] "requiring the Legis: Execut: & Judy of the States to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union," [16] taken into consideration.
- "Mr. GERRY moved to insert as an amendmt that the oath of the officers of the National Government also should extend to the support of the Natl Govt which was agreed to nem. con."
- "Mr. GHORUM did not know that oaths would be of much use; but could see no inconsistency between them and the 17. Resol: or any regular amendt of the Constitution. The oath could only require fidelity to the existing Constitution. A constitutional alteration of the Constitution, could never be regarded as a breach of the Constitution, or of any oath to support it."
What the People and the States are guaranteed by the Constitution is a Republican form of government, and the Federal cannot guarantee to the States a form of government that it is not. How can the Federal guarantee to the States a Republican form, when the Federal is not? To suggest such a thing is to wreck the whole. To get rid of the Electoral College would be to place the final nail in the coffin, disenfranchising the States from "their" creation, dissolving them into one mass and rendering them completely and utterly impotent, changing our once great republic into something even worse than a pure democracy, where we will be mere subjects to one National State, the weaker helplessly governed by the most densely populous and powerful territories that will have no problem subduing and oppressing the weaker States and Counties and rendering them irrelevant -- exactly the opposite of what the framers were trying to correct and guard against and sending us not forward, but backward more than 200 years; and, in ways, even worse, to under that which we were oppressed before the revolutionary war.
Further, to suggest that the Federal government is a "State" is absurd, for the Federal government is nothing more than a governing body instituted by the "member" States for the benefit of "their" common defense and general (commercial) welfare. The Federal government, not being a sovereign commercial State, nor instituted to act as such other than in a limited capacity when exercising its sovereign power over treaties and war, cannot be anymore a State than the governing head of the European Union or the head of the United Nations. For, the only powers of the Federal government are those explicitly given up by the States; and, those not given up to the Federal government by the State Legislatures, or to the States by the People, remain with the People and not with the Federal government. (Amendment X)
The People, therefore, are as bound by the Constitution as are the State governments and their legislatures, as is the Federal government. The People, by mere popular vote, may not "will" new powers to the Federal government either through judicial or legislative encroachments upon other members States or their People, nor by unconstitutional or treasonous amendments.
What is without a doubt is that the framers (the "State" delegates representing the "States;" for the Constitution and Union were being formed first for the commercial welfare of the States and not the People,) were setting out to cure the tribulations due to the excesses of democracy -- because there was too much democracy. The resulting Constitution that came out of the convention was to cure the evils of democracy, with a Constitution that guarded against democracy! To make such radical changes to the constitution by amendment and not by convention would indeed be treasonous. Once you understand the reason that the Constitution was sent to the People instead of the States for its ratification, so as to be legal and not a treasonous and lawless assault and encroachment on its current, intended and guaranteed form -- a form to which all officers of the United States and the Several States are today "bound by Oath or Affirmation" to support (Article VI.) -- it becomes clear; for the States are also not empowered today, as they were also not empowered then, to ratify such alterations; with such alterations being no different today as was then, than that of making and establishing a new constitution and new form of government.
Behold, more irrefutable truth…
In convention, May 30-31, and Sept 17, 1787:
"Mr. GERRY ...Democracy, the worst he thought of all political evils,..."
"Mr. Randolph said He was for offering such a check as to keep up the balance, and to restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy."
"Mr. GERRY. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy."
"Mr. MASON, argued He admitted that we had been too democratic."
"Mr. RANDf observed that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U. S. laboured; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy:"
"Mr. RANDOLPH disclaimed any intention to give indefinite powers to the national Legislature, declaring that he was entirely opposed to such an inroad on the State jurisdictions, and that he did not think any considerations whatever could ever change his determination. His opinion was fixed on this point."
"Mr. MADISON said that he had brought with him into the Convention a strong bias in favor of an enumeration and definition of the powers necessary to be exercised by the national Legislature;"
Tuesday, June 12, 1787:
"Mr. RANDOLPH The democratic licentiousness of the State Legislatures proved the necessity of a firm Senate. The object of this 2d branch is to controul the democratic branch [House] of the Natl Legislature. If it be not a firm body, the other branch [House] being more numerous, and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it."
THE FEDERALIST NO. 10: MADISON:
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."