Skip to comments.
In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux (Democrats Shudder In The Face Of Almost Certain Defeat)
New York Times ^
| 22 September 2007
| Bob Herbert
Posted on 09/22/2007 2:05:37 PM PDT by shrinkermd
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
To: Publius; Congressman Billybob
No, in a 1920 Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that a referendum could not be used to ratify a constitutional amendment. Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions was sacred. So if "Article V's Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions" is "sacred", why shouldn't the language in Article II also be sacred?
Article 2.
Section 1 .............................
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.
.............................
To: Paleo Conservative
Check out
posts 39 thru 41 for as delightful colloquoy between Congressman Billyob and myself on this very topic.
62
posted on
09/22/2007 6:06:12 PM PDT
by
Publius
(A = A)
To: shrinkermd
I LOVE IT! San Diego and Orange Counties are very red, but with San Francisco and L.A....California is lost to blue. This way, we'd have a chance!
Wow, remember the red county map??? What a great idea.
63
posted on
09/22/2007 6:16:15 PM PDT
by
NordP
(No running or relenting. The problem will be dealt with. Decisively. Systematically. Permanently.)
To: NordP
I pray that this passes. Can any California Freepers give us some idea how the campaign for this initiative is doing?
64
posted on
09/22/2007 6:33:55 PM PDT
by
no dems
(Don't hate me and call me names because you can't reply to my posts intelligently.)
To: boop
"I don't know about this, but I would support a vote only counting if you are a net "producer" in society. If you are a welfare parasite, you shouldn't have the "right" to vote for taking other people's money from them and given to you." I agree with that too! I would include stundents receiving federal aid to go to college, all welfare recipients to include anyone living in any federally subsidized housing, recipients of WIC, foodstamps, health care or receiving welfare checks and any person in treatment for drug abuse (crack addicts, meth addicts, etc).
65
posted on
09/22/2007 6:41:01 PM PDT
by
StormEye
To: no dems
I’m embarrassed to say, I don’t know how it’s doing. This thread was the first I heard of it. Hopefully, others reading this will know.
66
posted on
09/22/2007 6:47:27 PM PDT
by
NordP
(No running or relenting. The problem will be dealt with. Decisively. Systematically. Permanently.)
To: Beagle8U
"but mine would give me lots more votes..lol"
The only problem with having votes being proportional to acreage owned would be that people like Ted Turner would have a huge advantage. He owns about half the state of Montana.
67
posted on
09/22/2007 7:12:50 PM PDT
by
boop
(Trunk Monkey. Is there anything he can't do?)
To: Publius; Paleo Conservative
Paleo Conservative was correct. South Carolina maintained the practice of the State Legislature appointing the Electors through the 1860 election. The first time that South Carolina Electors were selected via State-wide popular vote was in 1868 when U.S. Grant won the State’s six Electors with around 58% of the popular vote.
dvwjr
68
posted on
09/22/2007 7:12:55 PM PDT
by
dvwjr
To: Repeal 16-17
"Precedent suggests that this initiative is Unconstitutional. Then again, this could be decided by the SCOTUS. Which means Justice Kennedy could end up deciding if this initiative is Constitutional."
I think that it would be unconstitutional in the sense that it clearly says the Legisature of each state can distribute the votes as THEY see fit. If the Legislature doesn't approve it, I'm sure the USSC would throw it out. It is fun to watch the liberals squirm though. This is THEIR idea. Direct "democracy". I'm tempted to support it just based on wanting to watch the libs come out against it. I don't support it though because if you live by initiatives, you can die by them too. I think initiatives should only be "legal" if they restrict government, not individual rights and freedoms i.e. smoking. Eventually the majority will take away freedoms that I may enjoy.
69
posted on
09/22/2007 7:24:54 PM PDT
by
boop
(Trunk Monkey. Is there anything he can't do?)
To: boop
It still would work out better. Conservatives own most of the rural land and the RATS are stacked in the cities on top each other.
70
posted on
09/22/2007 7:38:34 PM PDT
by
Beagle8U
(FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
To: LS
While it is done in a couple of states, I think it defeats the spirit of the constitution, which emphasized ensuring state identity in the electoral college. Of course, it would benefit us enormously.
I will have to disagree- I am quite happy to see this happen. The purpose of the Electoral College is to assure reasonable representation for less populous states. This is in the same spirit, though one would have to say "regions" instead of "states".
Something has to be done to curb the overweening influence of mega-cities. L.A and San Francisco own California even though the rest of the state votes Republican. The same can be said for Illinois- Without Chicago, it is a red state.
The split-point idea restores some influence to those rural areas in states with mega-cities. It is certainly an idea which is "in the spirit" of the intent.
71
posted on
09/22/2007 7:38:51 PM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Vote for FrudyMcRomson -Turn red states purple in 08!)
To: Paleo Conservative
I’m aware of the decision that a plebiscite cannot substitute for a legislative action in ratifying a proposed amendment. That was the special circumstance I said did not apply to ordinary legislation, such as election law.
John / Billybob
To: Paleo Conservative
No, it doesn’t. There are two different lines of Supreme Court decisions, one concerning legislation by initiative and other concerning ratification of amendments. The conclusions are different in the two lines of cases.
See earlier posts.
John / Billybob
To: shrinkermd
Under the proposed change, electoral votes would be apportioned according to the winner of the popular vote in each of Californias Congressional districts...'rats are stupid, but I can't believe they're dumb enough to let this go through......
To: Seeking the truth
Yes. He suggested this during the FL recount in 2000, arguing that the electors were not required to vote as they had pledged.
75
posted on
09/23/2007 5:01:22 AM PDT
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of News)
To: Paleo Conservative
I do not think that is the case at all, or else the STATE LEGISLATURE would not have been in charge of selecting the delegates. If what you describe were true, each congressional district would have done so.
76
posted on
09/23/2007 5:02:32 AM PDT
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of News)
To: roamer_1
No, it's not in the "same spirit" at all. There is a reason for STATE'S rights and not "district's rights" or "region's rights." As originally conceived, the Senate was to be the guardian of the state interests in Washington, while the House was to be the guardian of the people's interests. Likewise, the electoral college was designed to prevent more populous states from running roughshod over less populated states. If you read the debates over the constitution, there is NOTHING about cities vs. country, or regions. The state was the defining entity.
Ultimately, the Founders would say if you don't like it, move like they did to other states.
77
posted on
09/23/2007 5:07:46 AM PDT
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of News)
To: NordP
Well, since this thread was the first you heard of it, apparently it is not “setting the world on fire” out there. But, by the same token, if you haven’t heard of it, the fickle, uninformed, Democrat voters who only votes in Presidential Elections probably haven’t heard of it either. They’re the ones who would help defeat it; so, this might be a good thing.
Did I make any sense?
78
posted on
09/23/2007 6:28:41 AM PDT
by
no dems
(Don't hate me and call me names because you can't reply to my posts intelligently.)
To: shrinkermd
I wish the left was as hot to combat election fraud as they are to undo the electoral college...oh that’s right! Without election fraud- no demonRAT may ever get elected again! I almost forgot...
79
posted on
09/23/2007 6:35:15 AM PDT
by
13Sisters76
("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
To: no dems
You sure did. I was thinking the same thing, but you put it in words for me...and did a great job, too!
80
posted on
09/23/2007 6:49:39 AM PDT
by
NordP
(No running or relenting. The problem will be dealt with. Decisively. Systematically. Permanently.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson