Slashdot Mirror

Electoral College, learn about it, and realize that they aren't making a vote, they are fulfilling a role, and that each and every state has chosen to follow the vote of the people in the state, with the only slight differences being the cases of Maine and Nebraska, and even that's had minimal impact. States deciding to choose electors based on anything else would be a laughable outcome, and they just aren't going to do it. And they don't cotton too well to people who don't fall in line. As a result, the reality is? The Electoral College is just a pro forma sham, that doesn't really matter except to distort public interaction, and Donald Trump lost the real vote that matters, that of the people.

Then he lied about it. Which just shows his own deceptive practices, because even he admitted that the popular vote was what he considered important. People who try to ignore the popular vote (mostly ones that lose it) and rely on the Electoral College, are so deeply wrong, that they don't ever want to admit it. Some of them, like yourself, even make up sham excuses about how somehow the Electoral College does something to protect small states. They're wrong too.

I'm sorry, Lynnwood Rooster, I know you are committed in your partisan myopia to a complete and utter defense of the Electoral College, today, but since I also know you would completely change your tune if the circumstances were different, it's not exactly persuasive. You're not committed to any kind of moral position, you will simply believe you are at war with EastAsia, that the chocolate ration has increased, and that wrapping yourself in the Constitution will justify any malfeasance.

At least you're committed to that, so we know what you'll keep on doing.

Why get into a utilitarian argument when a principled one will do?

From Federalist Paper Number 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Did James Madison not know what the Constitution meant? Certainly it's flawed document - often vague - and other people would like it to mean different things, but the original intent is not hard to discern.

Plus people are pretty damn ignorant about it. Fluoridate your water already.

If you don't want to make your own choice fine with me but don't force to to follow your lead. If you want to jump of the Empire State building go ahead, but I won't. Nor do I want fluoride in my water or food. I buy purified because I don't want chemicals in my water. Here I have to pay to have chemical added then I have to pay to remove them.

Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people.

The most importants document in the US are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA neither one says anything about any federal government education department, The fact it doesn't but you want it to doesn't mean it does. If you want, it provides a method to change it, by amending it.

Don't just treat either documents as toilet paper.

"What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits "
it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.

No, you are the one that is wrong. Currently the US federal government is out of it's constitutional limits. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, if it does not say the government can do something it can not do it. Paper after paper says so. The principle writer of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote "The powers of the central government are few and explicitly defined, while those of the state governments are several." If the Constitution gave the federal government unlimited powers then states would not have ratified it. To think anything else is delusional. And to try to convince others otherwise is corrupt.

Falcon

Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today).

Except that's not true, the USA Constitution sets specific limits on what the federal government can do, if a power is not enumerated it does not have that power. The "Jeffersonian philosophy is clearly one of reason, individualism, liberty, and limited government--all of which are, in different ways, anathema to modern liberals and conservatives." James Madison said "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce;... the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperities of the people. (The Federalist, #45, emphasis ours)". Quotes from others on that page also support the constitutional idea that the federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it. Federalist #45, mentioned above states:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Quite simply states had to be convinced the federal government would not have unlimited government otherwise they would never have ratified the Constitution.

In many cases, it also makes no sense for individual states to manage things like environmental and health policy on a one-by-one basis. With one or two exceptions, the USA has functioned as a singular entity for over 100 years.

Health is one of the things individual states pretty much control, that's in part why there are problems with the affordability of medicine and health care. Each state decides who can sell insurance in the state, and what the insurance must cover. If I, living in one state, cross the state line and find cheaper insurance in another state I can not buy that insurance to use in the state I live in. There is no free market in insurance, but did the Health Insurance reform bill congress passed and Obama signed change that? No.

Falcon

Oh, so you claim that 'Commerce' back then was like cultural exchanges? Sheesh!

Look at Federalist Paper #11 for example.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/library/fed11.htm l

Its title is "The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy"

Is it speaking of touchy-feely "human interaction"? Hell no. It is talking about TRADE.

E.G.

It would be in the power of the maritime nations, availing themselves of our universal impotence, to prescribe the conditions of our political existence; and as they have a common interest in being our carriers, and still more in preventing our becoming theirs, they would in all probability combine to embarrass our navigation in such a manner as would in effect destroy it, and confine us to a PASSIVE COMMERCE. We should then be compelled to content ourselves with the first price of our commodities, and to see the profits of our trade snatched from us to enrich our enemies and persecutors.

This paper is all about commerce as business trade. No where is it used to denote something less commecial like social intercourse.

Your zealot dig at Fox News isn't shared by the rest of the US or the world. In a short amount of time, Fox has ripped to pieces Communist News Network.

1. Are ignorant of the laws
2. Are ignorant of the prevailing wages
3. Are afraid to speak up because they don't want to
   1. get fired and then sued by their previous employer for breaking the employment contract
   2. are afraid immigration problems
4. Come from a culture where it is expected/accepted that they will be exploited unfairly.