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 ...
on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
******************
How does a part of the constitution become unconstitional?
Now rules/laws etc outside the constitution can be unconstitutional
LA Times. Just more proof we need to secure the border and deport the illegals.
Yes!!
Procedures for amending the Constitution are clearly prescribed in the document itself. Justices and judges deciding by fiat isn’t one of the options, as you say.
Once SCOTUS vacancy is filled by POTUS, even the fiat option is inoperative.
But you might try fiat-ing in the present court, LA Times. See where that gets you.
I swear. This winning. Most fun election of my lifetime.
"Oooooo....Didums woos an ewection? Oh, noooooez....." 😂😜😁
If stupid hurt, we would have less of it.
#LATimesLIES
Gawd I'm sick of these sore losers.
Somebody needs thier law license revoked.
LOL! +1
I think this guy doesn’t understand the term unconstitutional. Possibly the left has some unwritten ethical guidelines that they are making up and following which is their shadow constitution. And the electoral college is not in that.
Go to h311, LA Times.
Even better: Go to Mexico, LA Times. California is gone. We need to excise the cancer ASAP.
As long as it fits their agenda, the times will print any BS that comes it’s way.
It’s in the ‘help the poor’ clause. You didn’t see it? It’s right after the ‘planned parent(less) hood/abortion’ clause and the ‘we can regulate firearms’ clause.(infringe doesn’t mean we can’t infringe part II). Freakin’ wack-a-doodle.
Good one!
Banned? Is banning in the constitution?
A person becomes a liberal (er, now “progressive”) when they decide that reality itself can be malleable and plastic, subject to their ever-changing ideas of fashion and passion.
Case in point: calling a provision of the Constitution in violation of same.
A college president with guts would fire this professor for incompetence.
The hysterical drivel from the left will continue on through the weekend, until it reaches a fevered pitch on Monday. Once the electors have voted, they should withdraw to their dark corners, lick their perceived wounds, and pout until after the first of the year.
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.