dagblog - Comments for "Three-fifths Clause = Donald Trump"

Bingo! HA!

barefooted — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:48:03 +0000

In reply to I would propose an Amendment

Bingo! HA!

I would propose an Amendment

Richard Day — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:38:43 +0000

In reply to Three-fifths Clause = Donald Trump

I would propose an Amendment to the Constitution that would count every fan of right wing radio as 3/5's of a human being.

That one Amendment would get rid of a lot of problems.

hahahahahahs

No, in all likelihood an

barefooted — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 19:54:45 +0000

In reply to We're not going to get an

No, in all likelihood an amendment will not happen. Yet ten states and the District of Columbia (all blue, thus far) have signed on to the National Popular Vote bill - and it has been at least seriously considered by many, many more. The current states with the law in effect equal 165 electoral votes, leaving an obvious 105 still required to "kick" it into effect.

As Politico points out in yet another anti-Electoral College rant, the NPV is an "ingenious compact" ... "that takes maximum advantage of the absurd latitude Article II gives states in allocating presidential electors (“in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”)." So you're right, Ocean. We need to keep talking.

They also stole the Supreme

CVille Dem — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:00:45 +0000

In reply to We're not going to get an

They also stole the Supreme Court.

We're not going to get an

ocean-kat — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:29:15 +0000

In reply to Three-fifths Clause = Donald Trump

We're not going to get an amendment. Why would republicans give up their advantage? But we need to keep talking about it, about Hillary and Gore. We need to keep pointing out that Hillary won the election. It was stolen by some weird rule called the Electoral College. Maybe that will keep democrats mad and cause them to fight harder both in real world and in the senate. If we can keep democrats pissed maybe more of them will vote. It's not going to change but we can't just accept it and forget it.

Point well taken. A departure

moat — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:03:50 +0000

In reply to The 14th amendment was passed

Point well taken.
But it kind of makes my point too. The status of an individual under law is the thing.

The 14th amendment was passed

NCD — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:41:48 +0000

In reply to It is hard to imagine a

The 14th amendment was passed 1867 while the southern states were under military occupation. I have the Library of Congress link to the Act of Congress on another device. It was very concisely worded.

The rebel states were told unless they ratified it they would stay under military rule. You don't learn those little details in high school. The 'radical Republicans' pushed it thru.

It is hard to imagine a

moat — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:15:03 +0000

In reply to The Electoral College has

It is hard to imagine a constitutional amendment in this environment where simple votes on legislation and appointments are held hostage to agendas that do not actually involve the matters to be decided upon. Or when they do, the procedural rules permit a way to influence the matter by simple delay.

I appreciate the way Illing points to all the good reasons to change to a direct vote without actually endorsing or advising against it. It does seem to me that the existence of the Senate with its power over the end game of legislation is a strong Federal process that is not abridged by changes in how the executive of the Executive is selected. Getting to a new process of selection will require some kind of deal between sharply different points of view.

I wonder if some of the "unintended consequences" Illing is worried about in making that kind of deal concerns the separations of power between the three branches. The Founders made all kinds of seriously compromised kinds of compromises to create that structure. Our society has been formed by how that triangle has progressed or not through time.

The constitutional amendments are mostly about individuals being able to preserve their form of life without interference from authority. How much freedom should one give to one who believes what you do not? The separation of powers was an honest attempt to answer that question.

The Electoral College has

barefooted — Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:28:47 +0000

In reply to Three-fifths Clause = Donald Trump

The Electoral College has been a source of discussion as to its relevancy many times, and this particular election has reinvigorated the conversation - for obvious reasons. Yet calls to abolish it or to (at least) amend it have fallen on mostly deaf ears. A Constitutional amendment does not happen without consistent and resounding public support ... which doesn't fit with our general boredom with such things outside of emotional reactions that fade with the hangover. Barbara Boxer's latest attempt will go nowhere - but it would be nice if the way our President is elected at least reflected the 21st century.