The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on December 06, 2016, 12:23:04 PM
-
Madam45for2923 (1,996 posts)
Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al
Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-all: #1p1vote
https://twitter.com/lessig/status/805426166433742850
The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all†in the Electoral College
It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?
https://medium.com/lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.kyqhlyifa
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512644026
So, let me see if I have this straight.
People who don't live in NY or CA are supposed the call the AGs of NY and CA -- states whose EC votes are going to Clinton -- to try and argue before the USSC that NY and CA should be allowed to force every other state in the Union to switch their EC votes to Clinton.
I'm curious to know how NY and CA can demonstrate standing or harm.
-
I'm curious to know how NY and CA can demonstrate standing or harm.
I'm not putting anything by NYS AG Eric Schneiderman.
-
Ok, fine. You want EC votes to count the same for every voter? Apportion them by Congressional district, with the overall winner of the state receiving the 2 EC votes representing the Senators. They won't do that though, because they are not intellectually honest enough to state that without massively running up the score in the urban hell holes, a Democrat would NEVER win.
-
Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 09:56 AM
FBaggins (15,863 posts)
2. The theory here being that the Constitution is unconstitutional
That's... um... "novel"
The courts have ruled consistently that states have the ability to apportion their electoral votes under their own preferred system. The federal courts will not (can not) overturn a state's selection... nor could they ever do so ex post facto.
Despite that, they're all excited, posting the AG's phone numbers over and over. In NY, you don't simply get on the horn to the AG and have a chat. There are forms and forms to fill out and snail mail in, then it gets lost in the black hole.
-
This has toast, Trump is turning, the tide has legs!!!!!111eleventy!!!111!!!
-
So this would mean all state firearm laws would have to move to the least restrictive and apply universally. :fuelfire:
-
This "idea" is so moronically vacuous that all its only content is its propounder's and approvers' desire to overturn a fair and valid election.
-
Even an imaginative liberal Supreme Court would have trouble overturning something specifically called for by the U.S. Constitution. Right now, since there are only 8 members a tie means everything remains status quo.
-
Brilliant (/sarc). Get the Supremes to declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Maybe you DUmmies should have a GoFundMe page to help out with this.
-
Even an imaginative liberal Supreme Court would have trouble overturning something specifically called for by the U.S. Constitution. Right now, since there are only 8 members a tie means everything remains status quo.
They would never even grant cert. Changing this would be like trying to elminate one of the branches of government. The EC is baked into the USC period and NONE of the Justices would want anything to do with it.
That is even assuming it gets past the lower court which probably would rule no harm was done and/or lack of standin, which is how they ruled on all challenges to obozos country of birth challenges.
-
This has toast, Trump is turning, the tide has legs!!!!!111eleventy!!!111!!!
Time to dust this off and get it back on the news stands...
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0226/7001/files/LEAKED--A-look-at-Newsweek_s-recalled-Hillary-Clinton-_MADAM-PRESIDENT_-issue-1_1024x1024.jpg?v=1479511211)
-
Brilliant (/sarc). Get the Supremes to declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Maybe you DUmmies should have a GoFundMe page to help out with this.
But Lawrence Lessig teaches at the Hahvahd School of Law!
-
But Lawrence Lessig teaches at the Hahvahd School of Law!
The idiots who are misconstruing the Emoluments Clause have equally sterling credentials. They're all still idiots. The Emoluments Clause prohibits the acceptance of titles, offices, or presents of value from foreign sovereigns; it does not prohibit executing existing contracts based on normal commercial terms. Compensation, including rent, which is bargained for and received in the normal course of commerce is not a 'Present' or anything else prohibited by the Emoluments Clause.
-
The idiots who are misconstruing the Emoluments Clause have equally sterling credentials. They're all still idiots. The Emoluments Clause prohibits the acceptance of titles, offices, or presents of value from foreign sovereigns; it does not prohibit executing existing contracts based on normal commercial terms. Compensation, including rent, which is bargained for and received in the normal course of commerce is not a 'Present' or anything else prohibited by the Emoluments Clause.
Obviously you're just a Putin loving misogynist. /du
Seriously though: What's in it for Lessig? Is he really just so psychologically weak and/or anti-Trump that he's willing to beclown himself in such a manner to avoid coming to terms with Trump's win?
I'm trying to wrap my head around what makes someone who ought to know better launch on such a misguided trajectory.
-
Snugs, the EP clause is the spiky club of the Left, they have used it to destroy the safeguards of the 9th and 10th Amendments which were intended to establish a balance of powers between People, the States, and the Federal government in a similar way to the Legislative-Judicial-Executive triad at the national level. As far as they are concerned it has no limits as a tool to gain their fanatic ends, and the Supreme Courts going back to the thoroughly-intimidated one in the FDR years have been unable to put any check on how far they will let it go, as they are trapped in the original logical box they constructed in using it (For good and ill) to rubberstamp overarching Federal power.
-
a Democrat would NEVER win.
I'm just going to look at that, on the screen, for a while........
.....
Ok, I'll be in my bunk. :wink:
-
Madam45for2923 (1,996 posts)
Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al
Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-all: #1p1vote
https://twitter.com/lessig/status/805426166433742850
The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all†in the Electoral College
It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?
https://medium.com/lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.kyqhlyifa
Electoral College is part of the Constitution. It cannot be struck down.
-
ECmas puts Recountmas to shame. Every day the DUmmies come up with yet more ways to circumvent the EC - and not a single one will ever come to fruition.