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 ...
RIGHT!!!!!
The Constitution is unconstitutional?
It'll be 'old-fashioned' to choose our presidents by allowing the population to vote.
Maybe let the UN choose the president, eh?
'Bold' is a very nice way of putting it.
Here, they're just saying something explicitly in the U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional. It makes them sound retarded.
President TRUMP!
How many divisions does the SCOTUS have to enforce its fiat?
So, the electoral college is established in the constitution, but it is unconstitutional even though part of the constitution??? Really???
Are liberals in Orwell’s 1984??? Words don’t really mean why they mean and all that??
So then, only liberal judges truly know what words mean and what they are supposed to mean????
This leftist imbecile should be fired from his job. He is advocating unconstitutional tyranny and dictatorship as a LAW professor.
I would suggest that if we want to go this route...then fine...but the only alternate method is to hand each single district their electoral vote. Zero chance that we’d go to a popular massive vote deal where urban areas own the Presidency.
Yes. Much better if California decides every election. BTW. Has anyone heard more on Trump’s brilliant idea to flood the dem states with conservative leaning immigrants from Eastern European nations while deporting Mexican illegals.
I think we call that facism.
>>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.
...
“Plaintiffs in a legal challenge could be voters in any of the most populous states. They could correctly argue that their votes are being systematically undervalued in presidential elections,” he continues, glossing over that the Constitution clearly designed the Electoral College to mitigate the influence of large states.<<
Sorry, that bridge was burned since every single challenge to obozo’s reign due to his lack of citizenship was dropped for some version of lack of specific damage/harm.
Not only would the plaintiffs have to show the process was unconstitutional (damn near impossible for the Constitution to be unconstitutional), but then they would have to show how they were specifically harmed (completely impossible).
All those obozo cases can be stacked higher than the rafters as stare decisis.
Note: an “adjunct professor” is just a temp hire to teach a class or 2 and means noting about any academic qualifications.
....so are illegals voting
It’s right in the Constitution, idiots!
Be careful what you wish for, Lefties.
You don’t get this kind of behavior from people who are just sad or angry.
This is the kind of behavior you get from people who are really scared.
This is the kind of behavior that you have to pay people for.
They are really afraid that their liberal gravy-train is derailed.
LOlzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
My gawd, the Utter Stupidity is beyond comprehension
Unconstitutional? Really? Has anyone at the LA Times ever read the Constitution?
How about we ban illegal voters first and then we talk about it?
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.