Posted on 11/19/2016 7:57:19 AM PST by C19fan
The electoral college system for choosing the President was based upon the protection of slavery and a distrust of democracy. That system has allowed the loser of the popular vote to win the Presidency in five of our 56 Presidential elections. Such a system would be illegal in any state or local election. But it is contained in the Constitution. Can a section of the Constitution itself be unconstitutional? The answer is yes. We are all aware by now that we do not vote directly for a candidate in a Presidential election. We vote for electors who will (presumably) vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state, when the college meets after the election. Under Article II, Sect. 2 of the Constitution (later modified by the Twelfth Amendment), the number of electors is determined by combining the number of members of the House of Representatives in each state and its two Senators.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Woah. Hold up there, Tex. It was just a passing thought.
Chill out, FRiend.
This author is encouraging stupidity. In his mind, the movie “Idiocracy” is a documentary about libtard’s version of utopia.
Remember, the Democrats were the Party of Slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner
Note the parties of the persons involved in this incident. And many Southern Democrats sent Brooks replacements for the cane he broke.
“Can a law professor be ignorant of the law?”
Only willfully.
The farce is strong with this one.
A good thing to know about hiring a lawyer who went to Hofstra.
The 3/5s rule was a compromise between the slave states (which included Delaware and Maryland) and the free states. The free states wanted slaves not to count and the slave states wanted them to count, so his analysis is exactly ass-backwards. The slave states ended up with fewer Representatives than they wanted and were weaker because of that.
His complaint about the Electoral College violating the Equal Protection Clause shows that he doesn’t really understand how the House of Representative is composed. The Constitutional limits on the total number of Representatives is the cause of this representational disparity. He might want to change that, but that would create a very large increase in the number of Representatives. In neither case is it “unconstitutional”, as those conditions are defined in the Constitution.
This guy is an idiot
So to deny that there aren’t problems with the Constitution and how the Constitution is now being interpreted is naive imo.
It is now impossible, imo, to reverse-engineer the actions of the very corrupt federal government to the limited powers that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to it, the corrupt feds now regularly oppressing the states and the people with stolen state powers — just as the founders had feared.
In fact, the ill-conceived, Progressive Movement 17th Amendment effectively repealed the whole Constitution imo, that amendment a major step in turning the republic into a mob-ruled democracy which the Founding States had decided against.
And If patriots do not work with Trump to politically “force” the corrupt feds to surrender state powers that the feds have stolen from the states back to the states, then in it is only a matter of time before a lawless president again works in cahoots with a corrupt Congress to oppress the people.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Uh, no it was not.
Can a section of the Constitution itself be unconstitutional? The answer is yes.
It doesn't get much more stupid than this, folks.
The fact that this guy is a law professor is a disgrace. Under his logic the Senate can be declared unconstitutional too.
The face he was even awarded a high school diploma is a disgrace.
Uh, no it was not.
Can a section of the Constitution itself be unconstitutional? The answer is yes.
It doesn't get much more stupid than this, folks.
The fact that this guy is a law professor is a disgrace. Under his logic the Senate can be declared unconstitutional too.
The fact he was even awarded a high school diploma is a disgrace.
Their vote doesn’t “count more” because it isn’t even the same election. He doesn’t even understand something so basic. The same illogic can be applied to Wyoming’s U.S. Senate seats vs. California as well - and their House seat. Apparently this is completely lost on him. He’s clueless as to how our very nation is constituted and our system of government. Totally ridiculous.
Well .. we better get used to it .. the LEFT doesn’t like if we make a fuss over losing an election .. or votes over some lawmaking .. but they win the prize for petty, vicious whines of all kinds .. as they want us to believe they are entitled to win everything.
SICK OF IT.
Thank you. The exact reason we are a Republic.
Nicely put. Thank you.
>
“Can a section of the Constitution itself be unconstitutional?”
The fact that this guy is a law professor is a disgrace. Under his logic the Senate can be declared unconstitutional too.
>
Hey there, ‘professor’ dipshit. How do you jive welfare and the 5th\13th? DHS, NSA, DoEd, FDA? How ‘bout the 99% of govt BLOAT vs. A1S8? Where’d that authority to tax, vis a vie O’Care, originate?
Go work on your putz.
If I get his argument all constitutional Provisions that he does not agree with are unconstitutional. Liberal logic is a illogic
Romney would have won in 2012, and the Obama nightmare, would never have occurred. I also wonder what would have happened back when Clinton was elected the first time/
When did law schools stop teaching law and start teaching policy advocacy instead?
Yes! and you're an idiot to ask.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.