National Gun Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
It's that day again, kidz. And id anything the useful idiot "perfesser" is consistent.

OC Register/Erwin Chemerinsky - Contributing Writer



On Monday, the Electoral College will choose as president of the United States a candidate who lost the popular vote by more than 2.5 million votes. Never before has anyone who lost so decisively been deemed president and this is entirely because the Electoral College violates the basic constitutional principle of one person, one vote.

Although it is provided for in the Constitution, the allocation of votes in the Electoral College should be declared unconstitutional as violating the constitutional amendments that guarantee equal protection of the law. No court is going to do this for the 2016 election and invalidate the election of Donald Trump. But the federal courts should use the pending cases to do this for the future and help ensure that never again is there the election of a president who lost the popular vote.

The problem with the Electoral College is that Article II of the Constitution provides that the number of electors from each state will be the sum of its representatives and senators. Because every state has two senators, smaller states have disproportionate influence in choosing the president. Wyoming has a population of 584,153 and three electoral votes, so each Wyoming elector represents 194,717 voters. California has a population of 38.8 million and has 55 electoral votes, so each elector represents 705,454 voters. Each presidential vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times more than each vote in California. In theory today, states with only 22 percent of the country’s population can choose the president. The problem of the Electoral College is compounded by state laws that provide that electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. In all states except Nebraska and Maine, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state – even by the narrowest margin – gets all of the electoral votes from that state. This, too, greatly increases the chances of the Electoral College choosing a president who lost the popular vote.

Article II of the Constitution creates the Electoral College and defines its membership, but remember that the text of the Constitution is modified by its amendments. Article I authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and this would allow federal licensing of the press, except that the First Amendment makes that unconstitutional. Article III permits a federal court to hear a suit against a state by citizens of other states, but the 11th Amendment was adopted to preclude such litigation.

The Supreme Court long has held that the Fifth Amendment assurance of due process of law includes a requirement that the federal government not deny any person equal protection of the laws. And for over a half century, the court has ruled that a core aspect of equal protection is one person, one vote; every person must have an equal ability to influence the outcome of an election. In Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964, the Supreme Court announced that as much as practicable, the Constitution requires that “one man’s vote ... is to be worth as much as another’s.” In Bush v. Gore, in 2000, the court stated, “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the state may not ... value one person’s vote over that of another.”

Courts thus can and should declare that the guarantee of equal protection found in the Fifth Amendment modifies Article II of the Constitution and requires that electors be allocated strictly on the basis of population. Also, they should hold “winner take all,” provided by state law and not the Constitution, to be unconstitutional. This would virtually ensure that the winner of the popular vote would be chosen as president. That is what should happen in a democracy.

Yet, understandably, no court is going to declare the composition of the Electoral College unconstitutional in 2016. The rules for this election were clear when the candidates ran and when people voted.

But a number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the allocation of representation in the Electoral College and the winner-take-all rule. The law is clear that a case challenging election procedures does not become moot when the election is over because the underlying issues remain. Courts should use these cases to require that in the future the votes in the Electoral College be allocated consistent with population and that each state’s votes be decided proportionate to the popular vote in the state.

Judicial action is especially important because this is an area where the political process won’t cure itself. Small states that benefit from the composition of the Electoral College never will approve amending the Constitution to change it.
We should be embarrassed by the Electoral College. It was created because of a distrust of the people and democracy. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No 68, said the president should be chosen by a “small number of persons” with the requisite “information and discernment.”

On Nov. 6, 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.” For once, I can say that Trump was right and now is the time for action to make sure that never again is the loser in the election made president of the United States.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Irvine School of Law.

Declare the Electoral College unconstitutional - The Orange County Register
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #2 (Edited)
Poor discontented Erwin. He is so conflicted on most all subjects and levels.

"That is what should happen in a democracy."

We are a Republic, Erwin. Remember? He wouldn't have even thought of writing this piece of "academic rubbish" if Hillary had won.

"........
understandably, no court is going to declare the composition of the Electoral College unconstitutional in 2016. The rules for this election were clear when the candidates ran and when people voted."

So, what's the basis for yer bitchin', Erwin?

"........the votes in the Electoral College be allocated consistent with population and that each state’s votes be decided proportionate to the popular vote in the state."

So Hillary received the popular vote majority from Kalifornia and all 55 of its Electoral Votes, by far the most of any state. And she still lost. Go fort-up in yer Safe Space, Erwin.

This Leftist ding-bat is all "hard cheese and sour-grapes".
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
53,706 Posts
This clown is a very shallow thinker. He can throw words around quite well but his ability to think past the end of his nose is lacking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'm not a lawyer in real-life, nor on this forum. But it is so easy to detect this Mooks inconsistencies and contradictions, paragraph by paragraph.

The Dean of UC Irvine Law School. Just unbelievable!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,709 Posts
I am hoping that Trump will start issuing more reasoned opinions after the inauguration. His remark about the Electoral College will be repeated endlessly.
 

·
AZHerper
Joined
·
3,527 Posts
I think that what Hamilton said in Federalist 68 is worth reading:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

A number of years ago, I took a trip through the Panama Canal. Among the items that I downloaded to my Kindle for reading was the complete set of Federalist Papers (85). They made for amazing reading and provided a lot of insights into the thinking of the founders and mores of the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,864 Posts
2.5 million......that is what....2 percent of the actual voters? So they are going to base a change based on an overall 2 percent instead of each State?

no thanks.......folks have different reasons to support the electoral college and i have mine........it breaks up the power blocks in the regions. IF we always depended on the popular vote, then the rest of this Country would always be following whatever the politics were on the West Coast and the NE Coast.

the way the college is set up is more representive of the people of each respective State......a cushion agaisnt a "pure" democracy and a throwback to the States and their prospective regions.


they forget......we are not a democracy where the majority rules absolutely.......we are a Republic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
There are cities and counties where the "elected" feel, by virtue of being in office, inclined and determined to form a Confederation of Sanctuaries. That'll show that "Republic", eh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,207 Posts
I get the funny feeling that if the tables were reversed and Clinton had won the elector vote but lost the popular vote, Mr. Chemerinsky would not be making any comments about ending the electoral college.

Typical DemocRat hypocrite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Erwin doesn't seem to have received much support from the OC Register readers of his screed:

OC Register - Letters-to-the-Editor

Electoral College is fair

Re: “Declare the Electoral College unconstitutional” [Opinion, Dec. 15]: Erwin Chemerinsky introduces only one side of the equation. It is not that “smaller” states have a disproportional influence in choosing the president, it is that without the Electoral College, the president would be elected by a few large liberal states like California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. and the smaller states would be left in the dust.

— Chuck Metten, Brea

People power

In his column on the Electoral College, Erwin Chemerinsky identifies the source of the Democrats’ election loss: It’s those pesky people.

Let’s consider the popular vote myth. If you combine the total Republican vote (Trump plus Johnson) and the Democratic vote (Clinton plus Stein), then clearly the Democrats lost the popular vote. The people didn’t vote for the Democratic platform and they lost everything from dog catcher to president. Those pesky people, especially in the middle of the country, didn’t support the Democrats.

The solution is to eliminate the Electoral College by having some random bureaucrats modify the Constitution without the consent of “We the People.” Those pesky people can’t be trusted. A few more brilliant analyses like these and the DNC might as well stand for Done, Not Coming-back.

— Jim Staub, Laguna Niguel

It’s a republic

It is hard to believe that Erwin Chemerinsky, vaunted professor of law, does not know the difference between a representative republic and a democracy.

It is sad when a teacher is so politically motivated that they lose all sense of reason. He wants the Electoral College declared unconstitutional by the courts because he knows he (and the Democrats) can never have their way through the constitutional process — ratification of an amendment by three-forths of the states.

One can only hope Chemerinsky’s students shrug off his ignorance. Our form of government is a representative republic, not a democracy. True democracy is mob rule. Minority opinion has no representation. A lot of thought went into forming this government to protect all Americans.

If Hillary had won the Electoral College and not attained a majority of the popular vote, I bet this column wouldn’t have been written.


— James H. McGee, Orange
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top