Posted on 12/08/2016 1:57:43 PM PST by NYer
Well, for starters, only every one of the "we need term limits! Article V" crowd who want to stifle mine and every other voter's freedom of speech.
It's simple, really. We worship at the alter of Reagan and "Government is not the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem", and then as soon as something comes up we don't like (such as the apparent inability to get a given official voted out of office), we suddenly turn right to the government for the solution. Funny, that.
You are mistaken. I brought up the right's habit of turning to the very government they criticize as being too big for the answers. You're the one that just keeps going back to pot.
There are some tasks which are necessary for government to perform. Protecting society is one of them. Dope heads are a threat to society, and we know this because we can read history. Dope heads destroyed China. Dope heads created one of the greatest human crises of the 19th and 20th centuries.
It is within the proper mandate of government to prevent this disease from infecting their populace. It is not an abuse of power, it is a very necessary usage of power.
You are convincing me that if you are not a doper (you being a doper would explain a lot) then you are some sort of fool.
The issue of term limits is not one of "freedom of speech" it is one of power and control. The position of incumbency gives an immense advantage to the incumbent, and one that cannot be overcome by mere "speech."
Incumbency, and especially long term incumbency, creates cadres and influence which are invariably detrimental to the best interests of the nation.
It has been noted by many that Congressmen and Senators (such as Harry Reid) enter office as men of modest means, but generally leave office as men of fabulous wealth. From whence do you suppose their new found wealth emerges?
How did Harry Reid become so very wealthy as a mere Senator? I don't suppose you've been looking at any of his history, and therefore know what I am talking about? He is merely but one of many.
"Freedom of Speech" in relation to the power and abuses of incumbency is a misdirection.
Oh, but it is! If I want to vote for a given candidate over and over again, I should be able to. I've been around long enough to remember when the right was against term limits for that very reason. Yet here we are, whining because we can't get the bad guys out by voting them out, and NOW we want to change the rules.
It has been noted by many that Congressmen and Senators (such as Harry Reid) enter office as men of modest means, but generally leave office as men of fabulous wealth. From whence do you suppose their new found wealth emerges?
Congressional salaries are Constitutionally guaranteed. What isn't guaranteed is the amount. Instead of going after term limits, which do indeed stifle free speech, why not make their salaries minimum wage? There is no reason that these guys should be treated differently, or paid more than, some average joe performing his civic duty by serving on a jury.
You are convincing me that if you are not a doper (you being a doper would explain a lot) then you are some sort of fool.
Might want to jump over and take a look at my profile page. You might learn a thing or two.
So they want to put the fate of the country in the hands of 538 individuals who represent their state in name only..
2 Electors from Colorado?
Didn’t Clinton win Colorado?
They get to vote for her—so what is the problem?
They want to interfere with Electors in other states !!!
See what happens when you legalize Marijuana?
Logic goes up in smoke!!
Dead issue. Claiming we the people according to State law do not have a vote then we don’t get to vote at all since the electors do the voting as they wish.
“When did Colorado get so effedup?”
Since we let the Texan and Kali liberal infiltrate our Great State!
I agree. Electors should vote in accordance with the will of the voters of their respective states.
Failure to do so should result in jail time. Threatening electors should result in jail time. Such laws are a no-brainer.
It is a high hurdle to over come the 12th amendment’s very specific language that gives the power to the legislature to appoint electors as they see fit.
I blame John Denver.
Dont get me wrong, I like his music, but it put the rocky mountains into the minds of the liberal 60’s hippies. Who then moved out to Colorado. Now we are a mini-me of California except we have snow and mountains instead of ocean.
If an elector doesn’t want to go the way the STATE voted REPLACE them!! Is that possible??? I would think it should be.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it would be possible with a court order, and anyone who voted for Donald Trump would have standing in every stste of the Union to sue for that order........have the errant elector pay damages and costs.
Some Trump voter is going to make some big money out of this
situation.
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.