What?!
Up to #112 and no cartoons or pictures yet??
Posted on 09/02/2024 3:51:48 AM PDT by Words Matter
A mistake that has allowed the central government to run roughshod over the states ever since.
OK. He explained it. Too damn many Jacksons and Johnsons. Andrew Jackson, Jesse Jackson, Robert Jackson, Ketanji Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee. Retire that last name already. It’s too confusing. And Lee, too. Bruce Lee, Robert E. Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee...
Who?
Michael Jackson, Magic Johnson.
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution.
Chris Hayes called the Electoral College “a wildly dangerous institution that undermines democracy’.
For Democrats it is all about winning.
If the electoral college helps them win they love it.
It if hurts their chances they are against it.
It doesn’t matter whether Democrats or Republicans would do better without the electoral college. When the initial colonies agreed to be states under the same government, they did so with the constitutionally guaranteed understanding that each state would have its own, separate say in who would be president. If this is going to be radically altered and this fundamental power taken from the individual states, I think it would be justified for each state to have the right to reconsider whether it still wants to remain part of the union. The initial understanding for their joining the union will have been removed, breaking that initial contract of union in my opinion.
19th Amendment not far behind since Kamala is the pick of almost 2 out of 3 women.
If I remember correctly, Hitlery , A very sore loser, wanted the electoral college to be abolished and have only the popular vote count 😅
[thread article] "It’s clear as day the Electoral College is, to quote the great Justice Jackson a national suicide pact, Hayes posted."[thread article] "The media pundit’s statement referenced a quote from Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who wrote in 1949 that the Supreme Court "will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact" if it doesn’t balance its "doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom."
[rummyfan #32] "It’s clear as day the Electoral College is, to quote the great Justice Jackson a national suicide pact,"
[KevinB #58] From the article: The media pundit’s statement referenced a quote from Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who wrote in 1949 that the Supreme Court "will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact" if it doesn’t balance its "doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom."
[Ultra Sonic 007 #71]
So in other words, Chris Hayes mangled the quotes meaning. Figures./The electoral college //isn’t part of the Bill of Rights ///and Jackson’s words were from his dissent ////on the free speech case “Terminiello v. City of Chicago”
Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949)
Justice Jackson did say; at page 37:
This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.However, when thus citing a Supreme Court Justice, it should be noted that the quote is not from an Opinion of the Court, but is dictum from a dissenting opinion. Justice Burton joined Justice Jackson forming a two-person minority dissent.
The Electoral College is in Article 2 of the original Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights. Amendment 12 (1804) refined the procedures to be followed by the Electoral College, but said Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.
It is clear that Justice Jackson's two-person minority dissenting opinion said not a mumbling word about the Electoral College.
It is clear that, "It’s clear as day the Electoral College is, to quote the great Justice Jackson a national suicide pact;" is a Chris Hayes fantasy. Justice Jackson was not talking of the Electoral College at all.
Further frustrating to the Chris Hayes destruction of the American republic is the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000):
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 , 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).The People, if permitted by their State, vote for delegates who represent their State in the Electoral College. The States, as the members of the Union, elect the President of the United States. The Framers, in their wisdom, invented a system to prevent the more densely populated States from dominating the much vaster area of lightly populated states.
According to Article 7, "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
The Union is a union of States. Nothing whatever has ever been decided by a consolidated national referendum of the people of the States. At no time in the nation's history have the individual citizens had a right to vote in the election of delegates to the Electoral College. Such voting is a privilege granted by the State legislatures, a privilege the legislatures could revoke if they so choose.
There was no consolidated vote of the people to create the Constitution, and there is no consolidated vote of the people to amend the Constitution. It takes three-fourths of the States, not three fourths of the people.
The change they desire is to make the urban areas king, and the rural areas powerless.
CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI 179,936,948
How does one get the other 40 states to vote themselves into being vassal states. Actually, the first nine, at 169,902,835, hold a majority of the population.
The urban areas contain over 80% of the population. Just think of the benefits they can vote for Panem.
Up to #112 and no cartoons or pictures yet??
Democrats whine and wail when they can’t win. They might do better if they weren’t such stinking leftists.
Good post, Woodpusher. In fact, it’s one of the best I’ve seen on this site for a while. I was starting to think there aren’t any scholars left here. :-)
Or Abe Lincoln with 39%
This happened before I was born and I’m not very aware of it, but can see the problem. Can you point out the specific SCOTUS ruling?
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) [8-1] Harlan (R) dissenting.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23
Facts of the case
In 1961, M.O. Sims, David J. Vann (of Vann v. Baggett), John McConnell (McConnell v. Baggett), and other voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. Lines dividing electoral districts had resulted in dramatic population discrepancies among the districts. The state constitution required at least one representative per county and senatorial district. However, the district in Jefferson County, which is near Birmingham, contained 41 times as many eligible voters as those in another district of the state. Sims and the other voters argued that this lack of proportionality prevented them from effectively participating in a republican form of government.
Question
Did Alabama's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by mandating at least one representative per county and creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators, regardless of population variances?
Conclusion
8–1 decision
majority opinion by Earl Warren
Equal protection requires that state legislative districts should be comprised of roughly equal populations if possible.
In an 8-to-1 decision authored by Justice Earl Warren, the Court upheld the challenge to the Alabama system, holding that Equal Protection Clause demanded "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens...." Noting that the right to direct representation was "a bedrock of our political system," the Court held that both houses of bicameral state legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis. States were required to "honest and good faith" efforts to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practicable.
Justice Stewart concurred, agreeing with Warren that the Court could intervene to address egregious situations of misapportionment, Stewart sought to limit the application of this decision to clear violations of equal protection. He felt wary of imposing specific guidelines on states for how to redraw the district lines or setting a certain range of ratios that would be acceptable.
Justice Harlan dissented, applying an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which in his opinion had not been meant by the drafters to protect voting rights. He suggested that the Court was intruding on federalism principles protecting the states in their control of local matters.
Justice Clark concurred in a separate opinion.
- - - - -
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) [6-3] Clark (D), Harlan (R) and Stewart (R) dissenting.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/22
Facts of the case
James P. Wesberry resided in a Georgia congressional district with a population two to three times greater than that of other congressional districts in the state. He asserted that because there was only one congressman for each district, his vote was debased as a result of the state apportionment statute and the state's failure to realign the congressional districts. Wesberry sought to invalidate the apportionment statute and enjoin defendants, the Governor and Secretary of State, from conducting elections under it. The district court dismissed the complaint for non-justiciability and want of equity. Wesberry appealed.
Question
Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?
Conclusion
6–3 decision for Wesberry
majority opinion by Hugo L. Black
Congressional districts must have roughly equal populations if this is feasible.
In an opinion authored by Hugo L. Black, the 6-3 majority held that the district court had jurisdiction because debasement of the right to vote as a result of a state congressional apportionment law was justiciable and not subject to dismissal for "want of equity." The Court further held that the apportionment statute was invalid because it abridged the requirement of Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution that The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Justice Clark concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the majority that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for nonjusticiability and want of equity, but stated further that Article 1, section 2, does not forbid disproportionate congressional districts and that the case should be remanded for a hearing to determine whether the apportionment statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Harlan dissented on the ground that the Constitution expressly provides that state legislatures and Congress have exclusive jurisdiction over problems of congressional apportionment of the type involved in the case.
Justice Stewart stated that he joined with Mr. Justice Harlan's dissent except insofar as there might be implied in that dissent the view that the issues were not justiciable.
- - - - -
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/6
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) [6-2] Frankfurter (I) and Harlan (R) dissenting. Whittaker (R) did not take part.
6–2 decision for Baker
majority opinion by William J. Brennan, Jr.
State reapportionment claims are justiciable in federal court
In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his majority opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.
Justices Douglas, Clark, and Stewart filed separate concurring opinions.
Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justice Harlan, dissented.
- - - - -
Thank you.
Well if he called the EC a suicide pact than he is was an idiot just like Ketanji.
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.