• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

What are the reasons for some states being less populous than others 200 years later?
 
oh good pop found this thread again

what are your republican values pop?
 
Colonel Angus said:
Will it be possible to reference a specific page or essay for this in the 1619 project?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Just cite it as “birdman pers. comm.” in your lit review. It won’t help my h-index but that’s ok.
 
TheReff said:
Since when did getting elected POTUS become a vote of the popular vote? Never in U.S. history because we have the electoral college luckily and it keeps about 5 states total from controlling the other 45 states. That is also why we have 2 Senators per state, to balance out and give fair representation to each state. Our Founding Fathers thought this out well and it will never be changed!
Click to expand...

How many states were there when the Constitution was ratified? And why should land (states) have more power than people?

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson
 
1. As to the EC problem, double the size of the House of Representatives and add Puerto Rico and DC as states.
2. For the Supreme Court, each President appoints 3 new justices per term, just like Trump.
 
DeacsPop said:
While you may or may not be right in conservative reluctance to alter the document, might we also conclude liberals want to change even some of the most basic elements contained in the document?

The electoral college may be the best example of this tug of war. As pointed out by Ref, it was designed to level the playing field in a Country founded on “states rights” to protect the minority who know they were far outnumbered by the more populous states.

The bottom line and best part of the Constitution is it can be changed. Personally I’m tired of the bitchIng and moaning of people lecturing that they won the “popular vote”. The answer is simple.

Change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Don't have to, old man. Just need the popular vote interstate compact. Just a few more states, and people can stop making stupid arguments about why the votes of people in Wyoming should count 4 times as much as votes of people in NY. So unbelievably dumb.
 
DeacsPop said:
The electoral college may be the best example of this tug of war. As pointed out by Ref, it was designed to level the playing field in a Country founded on “states rights” to protect the minority who know they were far outnumbered by the more populous states.
.
Click to expand...

and let the south count slaves for the purposes of executive power but not, you know, as actual people
 
Whatever. I hope Soros, Bezos, and Bloomberg get their act together and realize they could change politics forever by paying a million Democrats to move out of California to small western states. Hillary won CA by over 4 million votes. Pay a million people from CA to move to Alaska (-46,633), Montana (-101,531), South Dakota (-110,263), Wyoming (-118,446), North Dakota (-123,036). Take over the Senate and get a nice little EC cushion.
 
PhDeac said:
Whatever. I hope Soros, Bezos, and Bloomberg get their act together and realize they could change politics forever by paying a million Democrats to move out of California to small western states. Hillary won CA by over 4 million votes. Pay a million people from CA to move to Alaska (-46,633), Montana (-101,531), South Dakota (-110,263), Wyoming (-118,446), North Dakota (-123,036). Take over the Senate and get a nice little EC cushion.
Click to expand...

Theme song for this operation should be "I Wanna Be A Cowboy" !

Riding on the range,
I've got my hat on,
I've got my boots dusty.
 
If Soros wants to set me up near Big Sky Montana or Grand Targhee Wyoming I'm all in. Don't live in CA though so I guess I'm not eligible.
 
Deacon923 said:
If Soros wants to set me up near Big Sky Montana or Grand Targhee Wyoming I'm all in. Don't live in CA though so I guess I'm not eligible.
Click to expand...

Nope. You're in a swing state. You need to stay put.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Don't have to, old man. Just need the popular vote interstate compact. Just a few more states, and people can stop making stupid arguments about why the votes of people in Wyoming should count 4 times as much as votes of people in NY. So unbelievably dumb.
Click to expand...

Yes Junior, unbelievably dumb.

And the States that have "ratified" this unconstitutional document.

Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Mass, DC, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, New Mexico and Oregon.

Besides being unconstitutional; ("No State shall, without the consent of Congress....enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State") does the list above have anything in common with your dumb ass?

Senior
 
PhDeac said:
Whatever. I hope Soros, Bezos, and Bloomberg get their act together and realize they could change politics forever by paying a million Democrats to move out of California to small western states. Hillary won CA by over 4 million votes. Pay a million people from CA to move to Alaska (-46,633), Montana (-101,531), South Dakota (-110,263), Wyoming (-118,446), North Dakota (-123,036). Take over the Senate and get a nice little EC cushion.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't even be that hard to convince people. It is so much cheaper to live in places that aren't California or New York.
 
DeacsPop said:
Yes Junior, unbelievably dumb.

And the States that have "ratified" this unconstitutional document.

Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Mass, DC, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, New Mexico and Oregon.

Besides being unconstitutional; ("No State shall, without the consent of Congress....enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State") does the list above have anything in common with your dumb ass?

Senior
Click to expand...

WGAF what states have ratified it, just need enough electoral votes. SCOTUS has held that "not all agreements between States are subject to the strictures of the Compact clause", and it only applies “to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” This compact does not infringe upon federal supremacy, so it does not require congressional consent. You wouldn't know the Constitution if it sat on your face and called you a racist old cooter.

Of course, Pubs have unethically packed the Supreme Court with "originalists" who will get to whatever outcome their masters tell them to, so we know where that will go unless dems do the right thing and add judges. And look, if ultimately Congress needs to consent to it (they don't), we'll get Congress to do so.
 
Still trying to figure out how giving the vote of an individual redneck in Wyoming 4 times the weight of someone in NY is "protecting" the minority (this will be the first time you and your party care about protecting minorities) versus subjecting the majority to the tyranny of the minority, but not expecting a thoughtful or rational answer.
 
Protecting minorities in this case is uneducated white Christian males, very similar to protecting religious liberty, which also happen to be uneducated white Christian males.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Still trying to figure out how giving the vote of an individual redneck in Wyoming 4 times the weight of someone in NY is "protecting" the minority (this will be the first time you and your party care about protecting minorities) versus subjecting the majority to the tyranny of the minority, but not expecting a thoughtful or rational answer.
Click to expand...

It is protecting minorities in the sense that the EC was established in an effort to protect slavery, and all slaves were minorities, so it was intended to protect them.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Still trying to figure out how giving the vote of an individual redneck in Wyoming 4 times the weight of someone in NY is "protecting" the minority (this will be the first time you and your party care about protecting minorities) versus subjecting the majority to the tyranny of the minority, but not expecting a thoughtful or rational answer.
Click to expand...

This point really stands. If things go as bad as they COULD for the gop this year they will pivot from "the silent majority" to the "bullied and agrieved minority that everyone is ganging up to pick on."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top