Posted on 12/17/2016 8:57:48 AM PST by ColdOne
The Los Angeles Times has published an editorial arguing that the Electoral College shouldn’t be allowed to choose the next U.S. president, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
Needless to say, Kenneth Jost’s argument is a very bold one, since the Constitution explicitly creates the Electoral College and describes how it works; the system was even refined with the 12th Amendment. But Jost, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, says that’s no barrier to having the Supreme Court abolish the Electoral College by fiat.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The Constitution now says whatever the Hell 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices want it to say.
In a related story, the LA Times is infested with America-hating maggots and is “unreadable” unless you’re a retard. How can part of the Constitution be “unconstitutional”? Don’t do drugs.
What a shame. Georgetown used to have a prestigious law school.
I challenge the “adjunct professor” to show me the phrase “one man one vote” in the constitution.
Yup! A snowflake retard.
The arrogance and evil of the left knows no bounds.
Well, you can review his current list of picks for SCOTUS. That should give you some idea of his mindset and deliberation.
Where are the Khalidi tapes?
They already have, and Yes, we do.
Besides, it's not Fascism when we do it!
So there!
CA....
He should be fired as unqualified to teach.
I say that we hold a referendum to kick California the hell out of the country. They have nothing to offer and nothing in common with the rest of the country. Good riddance!
Jeez, it is the DEFINITION of Constitutional, as it is in, wait for it, The Constitution. What are these folks smoking?
George Hanson: Oh, yeah, that’s right. That’s what’s it’s all about, all right. But talkin’ about it and bein’ it, that’s two different things. I mean, it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don’t ever tell anybody that they’re not free, ‘cause then they’re gonna get real busy killin’ and maimin’ to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they’re gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it’s gonna scare ‘em.
Billy: Well, it don’t make ‘em runnin’ scared.
George Hanson: No, it makes ‘em dangerous. . . .
“...says that’s no barrier to having the Supreme Court abolish the Electoral College by fiat.”
With the new Trump Court, good luck with that! These turds don’t even understand the Constitution.
It’s much more than SCOTUS - he needs to make sure no creative jurists who read a “living” constitution advance in our federal courts. Zero. It’s time for the rule of law to return to the judiciary.
That’s the point. California wants to forever elect the president with their illegal alien popular vote and they think the rest of the states are stupid enough to just let them, especially if the SCOTUS says so.
“It’s up to the Supreme Court — and a properly framed lawsuit — to do away with a system that not only never functioned as the framers intended but blatantly violates the court’s ‘one person, one vote’ principle,” says Jost.
No it doesn't at all...they're not the same elections. They are not national elections. They are local state elections. No in California is voting for Wyoming's Electors and vice versa...in order for this to be valid he'd also have to argue that the Senate is unconstitutional, governorships, etc...even the House as smaller states are all entitled to at least one member. If the Electoral College is indeed 'unconstitutional', then so is the existence of all of these other offices.
This guy is a law professor teaching at a university - you can only imagine the other nonsense his students are 'learning' in his class. Clueless doesn't even begin to describe how absurd these comments are. Why do we spend so much money on student aid, etc. to put people into institutions to be taught by people like this? A college education was once very valuable - but not anymore if this is the caliber of instruction they are getting.
I want to see Democrats get some of what they want, only not the way they want it to turn out. I want to see a Republican Congress and a Republican President put some constitutional changes out to the States for ratification. I want to see constitutional changes on (1) religious freedom (from social activism associated with gay rights and abortion), (2) protection of the most at risk and vulnerable of our society (unborn, handicapped, and aged who are not independent.....aka restrictions on abortion and euthanasia), (3) right to keep and bear arms (i.e. making states that overly restrict firearms rights no longer possible), (4) a clear mandate that immigration laws and citizenship laws are federal matters and not state matters.
OK Democrats, open Pandora's box, but know that you might not like the world after you change the Constitution that you has protected you for so long.
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.