85 Year Old Justice Ginsburg Falls!

floridays

Well-Known Member
I think they envisioned states voting for delegates that would then choose the president. These days the delegates vote according to each state’s popular vote. Might as well go the whole way and use the national popular vote.
I think you are incorrect, but exactly why should I expect more from you?
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
I think they envisioned states voting for delegates that would then choose the president. These days the delegates vote according to each state’s popular vote. Might as well go the whole way and use the national popular vote.
Great, change the Constitution.
Exactly what do you base what, I think on?
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
The political fallout has already started. David Axelrod is saying the Senate has to wait until the next presidential election to replace her if necessary. Would Harry Reid had waited if he had the votes? Don't think so.

the country could benefit if she dies soon. Ruth needs to take one for the team:raspberry-tounge:
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Because it is rule by "Tyranny of the Majority" ... that's what I like most about the USA Government.

American founding father Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon or population centers. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications".

In his belief, was the inherent belief that no one like Trump would ever be elected by the Electoral College!
WTF happened?
How qualified was Obama? At least Trump has business sense.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
Here's the thing, if they are property, how do they get counted in the census? Seems to me, the slave holders wanted it both ways.
You're smarter than what I expected from the normal respondent.

You are correct in the counting for purposes of census, only people are counted for purposes of representation.
I will not argue the property aspect, I can't with good conscience, and being devoid of conscience, I still will not attempt.

The fact remains their personage was recognized legally and a personal property right was a recognized legal instrument.

It was a very dark time, not exclusive to the United States then, it still continues in other nations currently.
 
Top