Walz says abolish the Electoral College

[Nostra]

The Supreme Court is the final say in what the Constitution says.

They can't rewrite the Constitution, Goatblower.

 

[marvin martian]

That's what the popular vote does dummy.

When your candidate wins it, sure.

Look, the white women for Kamala told me you're too fragile and stupid to criticize, and they're probably right, but I will say this: we all watched you deny every election you haven't won for the past 20+ years. No one expects anything different from you this time.

 

[Nostra]

They don't have to. They can just interpret it in a way that suits them, Simp.

Your delusions are cute, Buttercup.

 

[Curried Goats]

They can't rewrite the Constitution, Goatblower.

They don't have to moron. It doesn't explicitly say anywhere in the Constitution that president's have any sort of immunity. That is an interpretation by the Court.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your delusions are cute, Buttercup.

You're naivety is adorable. You guys toss Slaver salad but you haven't learned the most important lesson. Might makes right. It's power that shapes reality. The Constitution isn't a magic forcefield. The only thing necessary to exercise power is to put people in the position to.

 

[marvin martian]

They don't have to moron. It doesn't explicitly say anywhere in the Constitution that president's have any sort of immunity. That is an interpretation by the Court.

"president's"...lol. The president's what, dummy?

 

[Curried Goats]

"president's"...lol. The president's what, dummy?

I don't care that you discovered a typo from my swipe to text post. Good for you hall monitor.

 

[para bellum]

You seem to think your opinion is the only opinion that matters but what matters is the opinion of the people who sit in power. This Republican majority Supreme Court just interpreted presidential immunity for official acts. The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution any way it wants.

Sure the court can interpret the Constitution any way it wants. But what you are arguing is completely asinine- that every election since 1868 is invalid, and I guess no one noticed.

If the 14th Amendment eliminated the manner of choosing the President and Vice President that is specified in Article II Section 1, what did it replace it with? Where is the new Constitutional language for electing a President and Vice President?

 

[Curried Goats]

Sure the court can interpret the Constitution any way it wants. But what you are arguing is completely asinine- that every election since 1868 is invalid, and I guess no one noticed.

If the 14th Amendment eliminated the manner of choosing the President and Vice President that is specified in Article II Section 1, what did it replace it with? Where is the new Constitutional language for electing a President and Vice President?

I'm not litigating the past. I don't even know what you mean by invalid. That's an emotional sentiment. The past unfolded as it unfolded. How you feel about it won't change that.

 

[marvin martian]

I don't care that you discovered a typo from my swipe to text post. Good for you hall monitor.

The white women for Harris told me you're too fragile to criticize (and they're probably right), but you should know your poor grammar and lack of basic written English skill makes you look stupid.

 

[para bellum]

I'm not litigating the past. I don't even know what you mean by invalid. That's an emotional sentiment. The past unfolded as it unfolded. How you feel about it won't change that.

Well, your argument is that the 14th Amendment renders the Constitutionally mandated manner of choosing a president invalid. Specifically, you say the electoral college violates the equal protection clause in Section 1 of the 14th.

"Invalid" in this context means "not valid" or "not correct". Something that has no foundation in law.

Since the US has used the electoral college in every election since the 14th amendment was adopted, that must mean those Presidents were elected "unconstitutionally" as you put it. That makes those elections invalid because they were conducted in an improper manner, which has no foundation in law.

I am asking you what is the correct and Constitutional manner of choosing the President and Vice President that the 14th Amendment requires, and where do I find that language in the Constitution?

States still choose electors, those electors assemble and cast votes for President and Vice President. Those votes are sent to the Senate, opened and counted, and the winner is declared to be the President. This happens every 4 years, in the same manner as it always has.

You are telling us this is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and if you pack the court with enough liberal justices they will make that ruling.

I am giving you an opportunity to make your case. If the 14th amends the way Presidents are elected, where do we find the amended language?

 

[Nostra]

You're naivety is adorable. You guys toss Slaver salad but you haven't learned the most important lesson. Might makes right. It's power that shapes reality. The Constitution isn't a magic forcefield. The only thing necessary to exercise power is to put people in the position to.

 

[para bellum]

You're naivety is adorable. You guys toss Slaver salad but you haven't learned the most important lesson. Might makes right. It's power that shapes reality. The Constitution isn't a magic forcefield. The only thing necessary to exercise power is to put people in the position to.

So basically you're just a garden-variety thug.

The law means nothing, it's only power that counts.

You are the guy Madison was worried about in Federalist 10.

The Constitution and the electoral college protects the rest of us from people like you...

 

[struth]

Slavers aren't good Christians, dumb dumb.

Agreed. I was talking about Rev King and others like him. Dumb dumb

Although there were a lot of slaves in Jesus time.

 

[struth]

They don't have to. They can just interpret it in a way that suits them, Simp.

You think judges and justices interpret law on how it suits them?

Then why do any of them let people go they know is guilty? Why don’t they always find away to let evidence in?

 

[struth]

They don't have to moron. It doesn't explicitly say anywhere in the Constitution that president's have any sort of immunity. That is an interpretation by the Court.

Sovieign immunity doesn’t come from the constitution.

Not all our laws come from the constitution silly dembot

 

[Curried Goats]

Well, your argument is that the 14th Amendment renders the Constitutionally mandated manner of choosing a president invalid. Specifically, you say the electoral college violates the equal protection clause in Section 1 of the 14th.

"Invalid" in this context means "not valid" or "not correct". Something that has no foundation in law.

The law is entirely made up. It has no real foundation.

Since the US has used the electoral college in every election since the 14th amendment was adopted, that must mean those Presidents were elected "unconstitutionally" as you put it. That makes those elections invalid because they were conducted in an improper manner, which has no foundation in law.

Again, you seem to be litigating your feelings here. Nothing we change about the electoral college is going to change the fact that George Washington was our first President. How you feel about how he was elected is your business.

I am asking you what is the correct and Constitutional manner of choosing the President and Vice President that the 14th Amendment requires, and where do I find that language in the Constitution?

It doesn't and I'm not suggesting that it does. I'm simply saying it could be interpreted to eliminate the electoral college. What replaced it would probably have to come from Congress.

States still choose electors, those electors assemble and cast votes for President and Vice President. Those votes are sent to the Senate, opened and counted, and the winner is declared to be the President. This happens every 4 years, in the same manner as it always has.

Who's arguing otherwise?

You are telling us this is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and if you pack the court with enough liberal justices they will make that ruling.

I am giving you an opportunity to make your case. If the 14th amends the way Presidents are elected, where do we find the amended language?

I said it invalidates the electoral college, not that it describes a replacement.

So basically you're just a garden-variety thug.

The law means nothing, it's only power that counts.

You are the guy Madison was worried about in Federalist 10.

The Constitution and the electoral college protects the rest of us from people like you...

Madison, the Slaver? When you call me a thug because I want to eliminate the thing designed to protect slave States and you reference a slaver to do it that is a college level course in a lack of self awareness. I don't give a shit how a slaver lover feels about me and the constitution Madison wrote allowed for the owning and raping of human beings he kept as property. Facts are superior to this fantasy you're having about early Slave State America and it's respect for people's lives and liberty.

 

[Curried Goats]

The white women for Harris told me you're too fragile to criticize (and they're probably right), but you should know your poor grammar and lack of basic written English skill makes you look stupid.

To morons who don't understand language is made up and there is no such thing as good English? Ok....

 

[Curried Goats]

You think judges and justices interpret law on how it suits them?

Then why do any of them let people go they know is guilty? Why don’t they always find away to let evidence in?

You never heard of judges letting rich people escape prison for things like rape or manslaughter charges when drunk drive and kill people?

'Affluenza' defense: Texas judge under fire for giving rich teen probation in fatal DUI case

 

[para bellum]

The law is entirely made up. It has no real foundation.

The Law is the US Constitution, aka the Supreme Law of the Land.

The electoral college is defined in Article II Section 1.

You cannot have more foundation in law that that.

I said it invalidates the electoral college, not that it describes a replacement.

Yes, it is a completely inane argument to make, because amending the Constitution means you are modifying it. And since the 14th Amendment does not rewrite the electoral college, it cannot possible invalidate it.

Your bizarre legal theory is entirely nonsensical, and the idea of packing the Supreme Court with justices that subscribe to such a loony legal theory is stupid beyond belief.

"The Constitution is Unconstitutional!"