Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joss on Romney

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by MikeB View Post
    ...I'd prefer not to discuss politics on a Buffy Board. [/i]
    Which is a funny thing to post on the only place on the forum that is explicitly for political discussion. And which requires having posted specific agreement to the rules thereof before posting at all, incidentally.

    KingofCretins

    Huh? I said that the 3/5ths compromise made Southern states more powerful in the House than they would have been had only eligible voters been counted toward representation. It also made those states more powerful in the Electoral College than they otherwise would have been.
    And if there had been immediate insistence on not counting them, the Constitution would not have been ratified at all. Thereby accomplishing nothing for anyone. Hence the word "compromise" in "3/5ths Compromise". Instead the slave-holding states had to tacitly acknowledge that their status as slave-holders deserved a figurative asterisk in terms of apportioning political power.

    This is simple math. Even the Electoral College is based off population. Someone with a bunch of slaves got to ‘vote’ for all those slaves. If someone had 100 slaves, essentially that someone ‘had’ 60 votes to cast.
    The electoral college is based on the membership of the House and Senate. You are spouting pure nonsense at this point. 100 slaves = 60 votes? I'm chuckling here. Here's how it actually worked. The original House apportionment gave Virginia 10 of 65 seats. Here's how Virginia got to it's 10, in mathematical terms -- X+(.6*Y)=10, where X = free citizens and Y = slaves. At no point in that math does anybody get "extra votes" for holding slaves.

    My quote: The Federal Government was created to be more powerful than the States and for federal law to supersede state law.

    This is true.
    It's true, but only significant on areas where the federal law and state law conflict. I could do your game of quoting myself as authority and pronouncing "this is true" but that's... awkward? The Supremacy Clause was written with an implicit understanding that the federal government was still being given fewer and specific powers and the states had broad, indefinite powers. The only place the Supremacy Clause mattered at the time of its writing was in furtherance of those specific powers -- printing a currency, raising a standing army, etc.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii You don’t want voters to choose Senators?
    The Senate was designed to be the representative body of the state governments, i.e. of the states as sovereignties. Ambassadors, if you will, the official representation of the government in Albany or Harrisburg or Richmond in Washington the way that the United Kingdom or France have official representation in Washington. As such, it was up to the state governments to decide how that representation was chosen -- it could be selected by Governors, or voted by state legislatures, etc.

    The 17th Amendment was written as an antidote to Blagojevich/Chicago-style politics where Senate seats were being used as graft. It was well-intentioned, but it cut the legs off the reason for their even being a Senate. Utah and North Carolina and Ohio don't actually have official representation in Washington anymore, because with a popularly elected Senate, the Senate is just sort of a second House of Representatives. And a century on, people can't even understand what the purpose for the Senate was, for a bicameral legislature at all.

    Personally, I think that we have a much higher availability of information, that the kind of graft the 17th Amendment was meant to prevent would now be guarded against by public scrutiny and 24 hour media, so it is essentially moot, and it would be safe to return to the original Constitutional design.

    The President has more power over more people than a state assemblyperson. That is fact. As for your saying that I’m not an expert: are you a constitutional scholar, a United States historian?
    I know more about it than you, unambiguously and without apology. Confining yourself strictly to the language of the Constitution as written, what power do you see that Article II gives the President over the lives of private citizens? The powers in Article I are broader, and the text of the 9th and 10th Amendment by their nature say the rights and powers of the states and individuals are broader still.

    I think I've tried to explain this before, but I will again -- the states enjoy what's called a general police power. That is the generic power to legislate in the interests of the health, safety, and public morality. The federal government does not have that, which is why every act of Congress when tested in Court is tested against one of the express powers in Article I.

    The people would have let George Washington be King.
    George Washington wouldn't have, though, because as he said, he didn't fight George III to become George I. It was not within the law. We are nation ruled by law, not men. At least, we have been. What we are going forward... that is the question.
    sigpic
    Banner by LRae12

    Comment

    Working...
    X