Something is happening in CA. which isn't getting alot of press right now, but it should, as its passage will single handily give Republicans the 2008 election if the initiave passes...
Basically, a group of Republicans are trying to change the electoral votes distribution for their benefit by awarding electoral votes on districts won, rather than winner take all, which is the way it is in 48 states....
The problems w/this initative are too numerous to mention but a here are a couple...First, its backers say it will make CA. a more competitive state..That's total BS....In 2004, 50/53 districts were won by 6% or greater, most districts are safe in either the Democrats or Republicans favor, though certainly more areas are Democrat in CA...Campaigns are NOT going to spend millions of dollars vying for 1-2 electoral votes...CA. is NOT a swing state, right now, it votes overwelmingly Demcoratic....This initaitve will not make candiates campaign in CA. anymore, & that's a fact...
Also, Republicans want this initiative voted on a special 6/3/08 ballot...There trying to sneak it past voters (so to speak), as why not have it on the 2/5/08 CA. primary??....They know no one will show up on 6/3, as by that time we'll know who the candiates are, only people behind this measure will vote that day...
Another thing, you can't piecemail the electoral college..If were going to change the rules in the middle of the game, do it in all 50 states, NOT just in CA...Also, why the rush for 2008, perhaps by 2012 all states could reform their electoral voting system...Well Republicans are truly scared of losing in 2008, & that's the ONLY reason this horrific initaitve is being done..
I'm hoping Demcorats can stop this measure in court....Are there any constitutional lawyers on TER??....Bush argued in the landmark Bush V. Gore case that
"the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."
So, the reasoning that put Bush in the WH, should also be able to kill this CA. initiative, as electoral changes have to be done BY THE STATE LEGISLATURES, not special intersts groups...Is this correct?.....Let's see if "strict constructionists" can rule for the Democrat this time, as this will likely go to the Supreme Court if the initaitve is passed.....
The Supreme Court has already ruled that initiatives passed by the voters trump the state legislative bodies. I believe the case was regarding Prop 13, the 1978 California tax initiative. Regardless of who or what special interest group gets the initiative on the ballot, it still has to be passed by the voters. One out of every 8 Americans or 13% of the United States population lives in California. If it goes in California it will probably eventually go in the rest of the country.
The case on point is Hawke v. Smith, 253 US 221 (1920). A unanimous Court ruled that when the Constitution conferred the power to ratify Amendments to the state Legislatures, it precluded the use of a popular vote to do so.
After listing numerous places where the Constitution refers to the Legislature and not the people, the Court said: "It is true that the power to legislate ... is derived from the people of the state. But the power to ratify a proposed amendment ... has its source in the federal Constitution.
There is no question if this California initiative passes, we'll have a repeat of Bush V. Gore..
"Ratify amendments" refers to amending the Constitution, not a state law. The case you cited was decided in 1920. There are volumes of case law regarding similar decisions that have been published since 1920. Ask your friend to look up the case involving Proposition 13 that was passed by the voters in California in 1978. That proposition was challenged on the basis that the state legislature is the only branch of the state government that has the power to levy or alter taxes. The case worked its way though the California court system then went to the United States Supreme Court on what I believe was a writ of Certiorari. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the vote of the people took precedence over the state legislature because when the initiative process was enacted in California it was to right the wrong of a corrupt legislature. The original case involving the enactment of the initiative process was decided sometime around the 1920’s and set the precedent for the decision on Prop. 13.
"This proposal, and its supposed justification, are so flawed it's hard to know where to begin.
For starters, the proposal might be unconstitutional, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court. In Bush v. Gore, a concurring opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas (an opinion that likely had the tacit support of Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, as well) concluded that when the federal Constitution, in Article II, enlists state "legislatures" to determine the method of selecting members of the Electoral College, the Constitution necessarily forbids states from involving other entities (such as state courts) in a way that interferes with the state legislature's wishes.
That kind of interference, these Justices thought, was precisely the federal constitutional violation happening in Florida in late 2000: Florida courts were intruding on the unfettered discretion the federal Constitution had given, by use of the word "legislature" in Article II, to the state legislature, not its courts.
There is a significant chance the current Court would continue to hold that Article II's specific reference to state "legislatures" insulates those legislatures from judicial oversight that otherwise would be provided for under state law. (This is a proposition with which I personally disagree, but one which underpinned the Bush v. Gore concurrence). If that is so, it is at least arguable that the same could be said about popular initiatives that override and thus displace the statutes the California legislature has already passed in this area: These initiatives, too, might be seen by the Court as impermissibly interfering with the legislature's complete discretion in this area.
Transparent Partisan Ploys Interfere With Legitimate Reform Efforts: This Isn't an Issue of National Electoral Reform, But of Turning a Blue State Partially Red"......
Russert: Senator Clinton, please.
Clinton: Well, I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush,,,,,,,
-- Modified on 11/3/2007 9:34:51 PM
one-man, one-vote, or any comment about figuring out what is true, and what is best for the nation.
Of course, that problem becomes a lot easier if I'm the only True American.
Please put some vodka in your kool aid and stay home in November. It is just amazing how many far left stupidos are her on this board.
you stupid ass....No wonder Ann Coulter sells books, & the fat drug addict Limbaugh has an audience w/dopes like you....Your just another wacko far right loon, too fucking stupid to do anything but name call.....
Typical far righty, lots of rage & no brains....
-- Modified on 11/4/2007 1:23:09 AM
are finally getting smart and attempting what the Dems have been pushing in Red southern states??? (Not to mention Spitzer (Clinton's bagman) trying to get illegals to vote for Shrillary in NY since they fear a Giuliani ticket.
Check out what New Hampshire does with their electorals. Splitting electorals is nothing new.
Personally I think each State should be all-or-nothing. The Founders knew what they were doing.
NH gives all 4 to the candidate who carries the state. Hence Bush's win in 2000.
However since the NM process tends to favor the dems they never complain about it.
-J
That detail is completely missing. In fact, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the Electors' votes must even reflect the popular votes of their states at all. So, as far as the Constitution is concerned, the popular vote for President should have no significance to who becomes president. When I found that out, it doesn't inspire me to think the Founders knew what they were doing, or at least it's not reflected in the Electoral College.
Part of the problem of Bush v. Gore was there there was no Constitutional support for our current use of the electoral college. It's based on tradition. Unquestioned.
Now, I haven't heard of Democrats pushing to re-apportion electoral votes in this way, or are you just referring to dirty tricks in general? Republicans themselves seem to do a great job purging the voting rolls-- it's hard to say who is more effective.
that is most directly involved. Make it a function of the courts.
And we could use another amendment guaranteeing the acceptability of cash on tender.
What ever your politics and ideologies are; too wish winning by any means is not only morally wrong; but the polar opposite of democratic self government by the people.
You know the mindset I mean? The one that considers anyone to the left of Dick Cheney to be a radical Amerika-hating left wing looney toon who supports Osama bin Laden and the Terrorists.
The ones who cynically rape the Constitution in the name of preserving it.
The ones who won't support children in need of emergency medical care because it would take money away from yet another Pentagon secret weapons program earmark.
The ones who claim righteous indignation over Bill Clinton's Blow Job, only to be silent at the War Crimes of the Bush Cheney administration.
The ones who find justification for torture with no qualms at the moral corruption and ethical decay such a mindset incurs.
The ones who are so quick to call for the expulsion of all "illegal immigrants" while completely ignoring the economic and social vacuum that would be created. I mean think about it... if quad and his "ilk" had their way and got rid of all the "illegals", who would be there to empty Quadseasonals trash bin? Or mow his lawn? Clean his floor and wash his dishes?
I can just see quad now, bending over a lettuce patch and plucking cabbage heads by hand. Better yet, I can imagine quad and the other anti-immigration proponents lining up to pick up the slack left by all those Mexican day laborers in construction and other manual labor intensive fields. Yeah right sure... the ones we should be kicking out of the country are the fucking welfare parasites who don't do shit but are quick to criticize when their monthly welfare check isn't enough to cover the payment on their Cadillac Escalade.
But let's make with the political prestidigitation and make everyone look the other way at canards and red herrings while we rape and pillage and destroy our country in the name of personal profit, greed, avarice, and fuck your next door neighbor if it makes a profit.
That's the mindset I see represented by quadseasonals comments. I really hope he was just venting his frustrations at the inexorable disintegration of the Bush Administration and its utter incompetence being laid bare for the world to see.
But somehow, I doubt it.
-- Modified on 11/4/2007 7:50:27 PM
"You know the mindset I mean? The one that considers anyone to the left of Dick Cheney to be a radical Amerika-hating left wing looney toon who supports Osama bin Laden and the Terrorists."
Quite the stretch Doc but I will admit I like Cheneys approach to terrorists
"The ones who cynically rape the Constitution in the name of preserving it."
Something tells me you haven't read the Constitution since High School..
"The ones who won't support children in need of emergency medical care because it would take money away from yet another Pentagon secret weapons program earmark"
I am all for helping children who truly need but children who's parents can afford should pay their own bills....
"The ones who claim righteous indignation over Bill Clinton's Blow Job"
I have never complained about clintons blow job...I only complained because the LYING BUBBA shook his finger at me and 300 million people and also LIED UNDER OATH . For that I was disappointed that our president would set such an example..and also I was disappointed that he would be so stupido to lie to the F.B.I.
"only to be silent at the War Crimes of the Bush Cheney administration."
Hey if Cheney and Bush are guilty of war crimes why hasn't the DIM majority taken action???I know they are inept but other than that why no charges ???
"The ones who find justification for torture with no qualms at the moral corruption and ethical decay such a mindset incurs."
I am against real torture but I am not against the little slapping around that the libs cringe in fear over..Sometimes I wonder if there was ever a lib in a fraternity?
"The ones who are so quick to call for the expulsion of all "illegal immigrants" while completely ignoring the economic and social vacuum that would be created."
Social Vacuum???Actually Doc I would like to see all the ILLEGAL immigrants booted out..see below
"I mean think about it... if quad and his "ilk" had their way and got rid of all the "illegals", who would be there to empty Quadseasonals trash bin? Or mow his lawn? Clean his floor and wash his dishes?"
I don't grow frieking grass..I have shrubs and mulch and trees.. Why would I want to waste water and fertilizer on grass that I would have to cut every week?Plus don't you know all that grass fertilizer is polluting our Oceans
"I can just see quad now, bending over a lettuce patch and plucking cabbage heads by hand."
Yes I have done my own gardening many years
"Better yet, I can imagine quad and the other anti-immigration proponents"
I am not anti immigration only anti ILLEGAL immigration.
"lining up to pick up the slack left by all those Mexican day laborers in construction and other manual labor intensive fields."
I am already in construction and I have been in construction my whole life .. ever since I quit eighth grade
"Yeah right sure..."
Every one doesn't need a illegal alien or a nurse to do their dirty work...
"the ones we should be kicking out of the country are the fucking welfare parasites who don't do shit but are quick to criticize when their monthly welfare check isn't enough to cover the payment on their Cadillac Escalade.
But let's make with the political prestidigitation and make everyone look the other way at canards and red herrings while we rape and pillage and destroy our country in the name of personal profit, greed, avarice, and fuck your next door neighbor if it makes a profit."
I am hoping I am misreading your above paragraph but something tells me you are one of those West coast racists
"That's the mindset I see represented by quadseasonals comments. I really hope he was just venting his frustrations at the inexorable disintegration of the Bush Administration and its utter incompetence being laid bare for the world to see.
But somehow, I doubt it."
I am a Bush supporter so your doubt is correct.
It is a mindset shared by both sides of the aisle. Most of the libs here would advocate getting rid of GW & Co by any means necessary. So I wouldn't get too morally outraged.
In all fairness, I believe the Reps started it with the $60 million Ken Starr investigation and the hysteria over a blow job, but it doesn't make it any less unfair or immoral when the Moveon libs pull the same kind of shit themselves..
I regularly started getting e-mails from MoveOn.org after I sent in a contribution based on the heat they got from their 'Petreaus' ad.
I've yet found any of their calls to activism an example of "by any means". Too the contrary; all I have noted is a very organized call to 1st Amendment arms to combat a dangerous autonomous power grab by a converse ideology.
The mind set is dangerous and wrong no matter what ideology embraces it; but the exercising and advocating of free speech, expression, and assembly is the very spirit by which the governed is supposed to influence the government.
-- Modified on 11/5/2007 8:50:16 AM
because what I'm wondering here is if "any means necessary" includes illegal acts on the right, but not on the left.
Moveon is a private organization that is NOT part of the Democratic organization, any more than Nader is.
Ken Starr's investigation was done by manipulation of a lawful agency. The Swift Boat PAC - as another example of sleaze - was a simple alter ego of the Bush campaign.
I agree there are nuts both sides of the aisle. But the nuts aren't always connected in activity, and especially with the passage of time, and can't be held responsible for each other without connection.
The problem is when we lose balance, and one side or the other goes over the top.
You also need to draw distinctions between talk and actions. What exactly has Moveon done to piss you off?
-- Modified on 11/5/2007 9:13:29 AM
but we'd rather you leave us the fuck alone, ya closet nazi! Take your dictatorship desires to Iran, they'll love ya!
Nazis???? weren't they the socialist group? as far as dictatorship thats what scares me the most about the Dems..Its just that most of you don't see it coming ...Yep just like the Germans didn't see the Nazis coming . But most Socialists are blind except to the cup they are holding waiting for someone to fill it for them again.
-- Modified on 11/6/2007 7:19:57 AM