Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Massachusetts to subvert Constitution
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  15:22:32  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/mass_legislatur.html?p1=News_links

Whether it is a good idea or not is not my issue here. Its the way it is being done. This has to be unconstitutional. The constitution is clear on how our president is elected. It seems to me that they should ammend the constitution and not bypass it but hey thats how progressives work.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  16:08:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Robb


http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/mass_legislatur.html?p1=News_links

Whether it is a good idea or not is not my issue here. Its the way it is being done. This has to be unconstitutional. The constitution is clear on how our president is elected. It seems to me that they should ammend the constitution and not bypass it but hey thats how progressives work.
Robb. The electoral collage has been debated for years. I still think it has value, so don't just jump in and start blaming progressives. And what ever happened to the conservative call for state's rights? That goes out the window when conservatives don't like what a state is doing?

Personally, electoral collage or no, I think the way they are proposing to change it is a bad idea as long as the collage is in place. But again, the collage is set up the way each state wants it to be set up. So there is no consistency anyhow from one state to the other.

I see reasons to keep it and I see reasons to get rid of it. And there are very good arguments on both sides of the issue.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  16:16:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Robb


http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/mass_legislatur.html?p1=News_links

Whether it is a good idea or not is not my issue here. Its the way it is being done. This has to be unconstitutional. The constitution is clear on how our president is elected. It seems to me that they should ammend the constitution and not bypass it but hey thats how progressives work.

I am a far cry from any sort of a Constitutional scholar, but I'm not so sure this is in violation. MA is still keeping it's electors and the state's popular vote will still be as meaningless as any in the rest of the country.
Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

If indeed this is unconstitutional, it will land in court before the governor's ink is dry on the paper. I don't see anything to worry about.

On the other hand, the Electoral College is an anachronism. I'm not altogether sure it ever was of much use. However, I agree that it should be shitcanned by Constitutional amendment.

Oh, and I'm not a Progressive; I'm a Liberal.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  16:26:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ha! This from the link is really funny:
"The thing about this that bothers me the most is it's so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky," he said. "This is sort of an end run around the Constitution."


You know. Like conservatives never do such things. Never ever happens...


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  16:59:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ok I never should have said this:

thats how progressives work


I just think that these states want the popular vote to count and instead of ammending the constitution they are trying to accomplish the same thing by legislation state by state. I do think it is unconstitutional becasue they are invalidating the constitutuion by the laws they are enacting.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  17:07:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy


If indeed this is unconstitutional, it will land in court before the governor's ink is dry on the paper. I don't see anything to worry about.



Well I am not so sure. The article says this:

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  17:11:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Robb

Originally posted by filthy


If indeed this is unconstitutional, it will land in court before the governor's ink is dry on the paper. I don't see anything to worry about.



Well I am not so sure. The article says this:

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.


Well. The big loophole perhaps is that they are keeping the college. And as I said before, the rules are already very inconsistent from state to state. This could be a loser for anyone trying to challenge it.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  17:43:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil


Well. The big loophole perhaps is that they are keeping the college.
But it is clear that the intent of the law is to subvert the college.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  21:11:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Robb, the states' legislatures have always had the right to dole out Electoral College delegates however they choose.

Here's Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
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.
The 12th Amendment overrode the next clause, and replaced it with this:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
So it's perfectly legal and constitutional for the legislature of a state to simply ignore the votes of any citizens, hand-pick their Electors and have them send whatever votes they want to Congress. That all states currently have laws that direct the selection of Electors based on the states' popular votes is a good thing, but hardly necessary.

In other words, your vote only matters because that's what your state laws say should happen. The Constitution is deafeningly mute on the question, and so the Electoral College cannot, even in principle, be "subverted" by a state changing its laws.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  22:51:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Robb, the states' legislatures have always had the right to dole out Electoral College delegates however they choose.

Yes, but until now no state has passed laws that could effectively eliminate the electoral college as the way we elect our president. These new laws are aimed at doing so without changing the constitution. But I guess its constitutional until the supreme court says it isn't.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  23:11:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Robb

Yes, but until now no state has passed laws that could effectively eliminate the electoral college as the way we elect our president.
You're missing the point: back in the days before the laws were written that based Electors on the state popular votes, the legislators got to do whatever the heck they wanted to, regardless of the popular sentiment. This new thing isn't a reversion to the bad ol' days.
These new laws are aimed at doing so without changing the constitution. But I guess its constitutional until the supreme court says it isn't.
It's constitutional because the Constitution doesn't say squat about how Electors are to be selected, other than a state's legislature needs to do so. This is exactly that constitutionally mandated process in action. If every state were to enact the same law, and every state were to enact a law saying that Electors have to vote in a particular manner (not all do), then the Electoral College would be moot, but the Constitution allows for the Electoral College to be mooted in just such a fashion, by specifically stating that the rules for the Electors will be created by the states individually.

Hell, every state could pass a law which says that all of a state's Electors will vote for the candidate for President who got the least popular votes, and it'd still be constitutional (even if the state legislators who voted for such a law would find themselves out of a job pretty quickly).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 07/28/2010 :  06:32:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I just think that these states want the popular vote to count and instead of ammending the constitution they are trying to accomplish the same thing by legislation state by state.


Forgive me if I'm wrong, it's been awhile since I've done anything with US history, but isn't this how a lot of national laws come about: first they are enacted in states where they garnish the most support giving them more support in other states, and then once they have enough popularity people push for a national law.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Elmo the Clown
New Member

31 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2010 :  06:05:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Elmo the Clown's Homepage Send Elmo the Clown a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If the Good and Fine Representatives of the People of hte Sovereign State of Mass want to give all their electoral votes to the person whose name appears first alphabetically, it is good and fine, and constitutional.

I do take offense at them claiming that it "subverts the electoral college". What utter bullshit. The purpose of the electoral college was never to award votes by some stupid system. But they left it up to the states to decide, and they politicized it. The states can do whatever they want in chosing the electors, and once chosen, the electors can do what they want. Weird stuff happens. Hell, [url=http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1976]Reagen got a vote in '76[/url]. Remember the call for electors to switch to Gore from Florida?

I would find this hilareous as hell though:
2012. Romney and Obama are pretty tight. The fine voters of Mass vote 66% (I like super-majorities) for Obama, however Romney edges out hte popular vote, thereby giving him all the votes from Mass, and the presidency.

Not that I like Romney or Obama. I am just saying... Would be hilareous.

Support a clown, buy a luury cruise from www.ChicLuxuryCruises.com (or any cruise...)
Edited by - Elmo the Clown on 07/29/2010 06:14:08
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2010 :  06:20:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Robb

Yes, but until now no state has passed laws that could effectively eliminate the electoral college as the way we elect our president.
You're missing the point: back in the days before the laws were written that based Electors on the state popular votes, the legislators got to do whatever the heck they wanted to, regardless of the popular sentiment. This new thing isn't a reversion to the bad ol' days.
These new laws are aimed at doing so without changing the constitution. But I guess its constitutional until the supreme court says it isn't.
It's constitutional because the Constitution doesn't say squat about how Electors are to be selected, other than a state's legislature needs to do so. This is exactly that constitutionally mandated process in action. If every state were to enact the same law, and every state were to enact a law saying that Electors have to vote in a particular manner (not all do), then the Electoral College would be moot, but the Constitution allows for the Electoral College to be mooted in just such a fashion, by specifically stating that the rules for the Electors will be created by the states individually.

Hell, every state could pass a law which says that all of a state's Electors will vote for the candidate for President who got the least popular votes, and it'd still be constitutional (even if the state legislators who voted for such a law would find themselves out of a job pretty quickly).
I do understand your point and you may be right. But I think there is an argument to be made that the intent of the people that wrote and enacted the constitution was for the electoral college to be used and not a strict popular vote to choose the president.

The people backing these laws have the intent of making the popular vote be the way we choose the president and the electoral college irrelevant and I think that intent is important. Also, each state's decision would not be based on the states populace but of other states choice which may not be a legal point but I think it is relevant.




Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2010 :  06:34:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

Forgive me if I'm wrong, it's been awhile since I've done anything with US history, but isn't this how a lot of national laws come about: first they are enacted in states where they garnish the most support giving them more support in other states, and then once they have enough popularity people push for a national law.
No, not at all. The Feds have different interests than the states, and so Fed laws are often made for different reasons than state laws. For example, every state had laws for speed limits on at least some of their roads back in the 1970s, but that's not why the national, 55-MPH limit was passed (and recently repealed).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

astropin
SFN Regular

USA
970 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2010 :  11:25:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send astropin a Private Message  Reply with Quote
[i]Originally posted by Dave W.

but that's not why the national, 55-MPH limit was passed (and recently repealed).


15 years ago.

I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.

You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.

Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.

Infinitus est numerus stultorum
Edited by - astropin on 07/29/2010 11:25:59
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.48 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000