Conservatism; then and now

[iNow]

I don't think it is going anywhere anytime soon. And, being from a state of only around 3 or 4 million, personally, I'm actually glad we have it.

 

Me too, except for the "glad we have it" part. Hello from Texas, and thanks for addressing my inquiry.

 

 

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years' date=' and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

 

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

 

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.[/quote']

 

 

Passed by Congress December 9' date=' 1803. Ratified July 27, 1804.

 

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[/quote']

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/home/constitution.htm

 

 

 

Perhaps this tiny area is deserving of update to more accurately reflect the ability of the general populace to be plugged into issues and have their collective voices heard. After all, the above sections were both written prior to the telegraph, and, in fact, prior to the railroad.

[DrDNA]

Texas! Fine state. Fine state. Remember the Alamo!

If I were you, I would cede from the union immediately.

 

You know I think I read somewhere that there is no official mandate for the members of the electoral college to vote the way the majorities in their respective states wish them to. If this is true, the electoral college could in theory say: the heck with the Texas voters (for example) and cast their votes for the other guy.

 

I wonder if this is true or not....is there a law that says the members of the electoral college MUST follow the wishes of the majorities in their respective states?....any takers?

 

Perhaps this tiny area is deserving of update to more accurately reflect the ability of the general populace to be plugged into issues and have their collective voices heard. After all, the above sections were both written prior to the telegraph, and, in fact, prior to the railroad.

 

I MIGHT agree with you except for Geo's points about the short attention span and ignorance of the general populace. I don't agree with some (ok, a lot) of what he says and how he says it, but there is some truth in it, I'm sorry to say.

At the risk of sounding like an elitest (I absolutely am not, but know someone will probably use that term in a responce) , I might be for a system that was more along the lines of a direct democracy IF there was a better way to ensure that the people actually took the time and effort to understand the immediate and longer term ramifications of what they would be voting on. I trust everyone knows enough about Lindsay's drug problem, Paris' DUI charges, BradJoina, and Brit's big gut and propensity to go comando in short skirts, but we just don't seem to have the stomach or attention span to learn the critical points about the important issues. And we are much too easily swayed by 30 second sound bites, be they from the politicians themselves, the media, or from so called pundits.

 

I'm all for some sort of a civics test to obtain the right to vote. It's true. Go ahead and call me an elitest. I don't care.

[iNow]

You know I think I read somewhere that there is no official mandate for the members of the electoral college to vote the way the majorities in their respective states wish them to. If this is true, the electoral college could in theory say: the heck with the Texas voters (for example) and cast their votes for the other guy.

 

I wonder if this is true or not....is there a law that says the members of the electoral college MUST follow the wishes of the majorities in their respective states?....any takers?

It is, in fact, true that the electoral college a body of 538 people, have all say in who becomes the leader of the nation, and there is no reason they must follow the popular vote:

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html

The electors meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008). A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President and Vice President. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their State.

 

Who selects these electors?

The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.

 

 

 

I might be for a system that was more along the lines of a direct democracy IF there was a better way to ensure that the people actually took the time and effort to understand the immediate and longer term ramifications of what they would be voting on. I trust everyone knows enough about Lindsay's drug problem, Paris' DUI charges, BradJoina, and Brit's big gut and propensity to go comando in short skirts, but we just don't seem to have the stomach or attention span to learn the critical points about the important issues. And we are much too easily swayed by 30 second sound bites, be they from the politicians themselves, the media, or from so called pundits.

There is a lot of validity in your point. I concur that we'd be more likely to vote for someone who promised us all free iPods than the person who had the vision and forsight to lead us down the path toward a better future, a person with the leadership and passion to nurture support for these goals among the people.

 

However, your statement does show an inherent distrust in your fellow human neighbors (again, often justifiably so), yet it easily extrapolates to a complete dismissal of the nature and true strength of a democracy. If the people can't be trusted to make an intelligent choice, why let them vote at all? This is a path on which I'd prefer not to travel.

 

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/electoralcoll.htm

5 Arguments for the Electoral College

1. The Electoral College, in recognizing a role for states in the selection of the president, reminds us of their importance in our federal system.

2. The Electoral College encourages more person-to-person campaigning by candidates, as they spend time in both the big cities and smaller cities in battleground states.

3. In close, contested elections, recounts will usually be confined to a state or two, rather than an across-the-country recount that might be required if we had direct election of the president.

4. The Electoral College, with its typical winner-take-all allocation of votes, often turns a small percentage margin of victory into one that appears much larger, thus making the victory seem more conclusive and adding to the winner's perceived legitimacy.

5. It's fun on election nights to watch states light up in different colors on television network maps of the U. S.

 

 

5 Arguments for Direct Popular Vote

1. When the winner of the Electoral College is not the candidate who received the most votes of the people, the new president will face questions about his legitimacy.

2. Most Americans believe that the person who receives the most votes should become president. Direct election is seen as more consistent with democratic principles than is the Electoral College system.

3. The Electoral College gives disproportionate weight to the votes of citizens of small states. For example, a vote by a resident of Wyoming counts about four times more--electorally--than a vote by a California resident.

4. If presidents were elected by direct popular vote, they would wage a campaign and advertise all across the nation, rather than (as they do in the Electoral College system) concentrating almost all of their time and effort in a handful of battleground states. The Electoral College system encourages candidates to pander to the interests of voters in a few closely contested states.

5. The Electoral College system, especially in a close election, is subject to the mischief that might be caused by disloyal--or even bribed--electors.

 

 

I'm all for some sort of a civics test to obtain the right to vote.

Perhaps for the right to breed instead?

 

 

But alas, what does any of this have to do with Conservatism, Then & Now?

[PhDP]

Repealing this amendment is necessary to getting rid of the income tax

 

Why? The constitution grants the congress the power to levy both indirect and indirect taxes, but for some historical reason, direct taxes had to be levied proportionally to the population in each state. So if state A has a pop. of 10 M, and state B a pop. of 5 M, then state A must pay be exactly twice as much. Let's say sate A is poorer and has a younger population, it still would have to give exactly twice as much in income taxes. There's a historical reason for this, but right now, it's crazy and it makes income taxes much more complicated and unfair. Ron Paul said in a speech for this "Liberty Amendment" (sounds good with liberty fries);

 

Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.

 

But the fact is, the 16th amendment gave no new power to congress, and repelling it would not make incomes taxes illegal, it would make them very complicated, and unfair, but not illegal;

 

[T']he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.

 

If Paul wants to reduce or eliminate income taxes, he should have the guts to make a strong argument for it, and I would respect that even though I disagree, but playing the constitution card is not very brave and in this case, it's not even intellectually defensible.

 

I would never expect to be able to run for office in any capacity in any other country. That seems quite fundamental to me, for any society.

 

So for you it's normal that all American citizens have the same responsibilities, but only those born in the U.S. have the right to be president? You think it's o.k. for American citizen born outside the U.S. to become senator, representative, governors?

 

The Constitution is effectively America's social contract. As long as you keep in mind it's an evolving document and must be interpreted in the scope of the entire SCOTUS case history, it's something that Americans should respect.

 

To be clear, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your position, but I find it important to call to light the fact that the Constitution is a living document. It is not some set of absolute commandments carved in a block of stone.

 

But that's exactly my point. The constitution is an important document, it's the framework of a society, but as a society change and evolve the constitution must be allowed to evolve as well. It's absurd to limit political actions to what the founding fathers thought was good 300 years ago, it has to evolve.

[DrDNA]

But the fact is, the 16th amendment gave no new power to congress, and repelling it would not make incomes taxes illegal, it would make them very complicated, and unfair, but not illegal;

 

Excuse me, but exactly what about the current income tax structure is uncomplicated and fair? How many pages is it now? And next year there will be more. The only people that want to keep the status quo are tax lawyers and CPAs that make their living from it. And, of course, those who can afford to pay someone to find loopholes for them.

Try this at home: call the info service at the federal tax office 5 different times with exactly the same question. Assuming you will get 5different people each time, and you will, I can guarentee you that you will 5 differenct answers. And none of their answers are legally binding; meaning that if they are wrong, you can't use the info they gave you in a court of law.

 

And every year, it just gets more and more complicated. This thing really is broken, and not just a little. But I'm afraid that the collective *WE just don't have the where-with-all to do anything on a large scale about it. At least not in my lifetime.

 

I'm all for a new amendment that repeals 16 and replaces it with a new tax code. Of course who has the political guts to actually accomplish that? And I'll adimit that I might be afraid of anyone that could actually muster the power to accomplish it.......

[ParanoiA]

But the fact is, the 16th amendment gave no new power to congress, and repelling it would not make incomes taxes illegal, it would make them very complicated, and unfair, but not illegal;

 

Yes it did. It gave them the freedom to not worry about apportionment. It gave them the freedom to levy taxes without trying to be fair about it at all. They didn't have to fight about what was direct and indirect taxation, they could just levy however they like. Must be nice...I wish I could base my income like that.

 

How would you repeal taxes without repealing the 16th amendment? I'd like to see that legal trick...

 

This is how the pro tax-the-hell-out-of-the-rich-and-not-me ideology meets reality. They ignore it. The 16th amendment would have to be repealed before anything else could be touched.

 

If Paul wants to reduce or eliminate income taxes, he should have the guts to make a strong argument for it, and I would respect that even though I disagree, but playing the constitution card is not very brave and in this case, it's not even intellectually defensible.

 

Yes it is intellectually defensible. You haven't refuted this. How do income taxes get eliminated from constitution without repealing the 16th amendment? Tell me. Everything else can be removed, but that?

 

Playing the constitution card is exactly what I want him doing. Someone needs to pay attention to it. After all, that's what they swear to, not the people, the constitution.

 

And I can only tell you over and over again to quit listening to soundbites on drive by news media. I can't help it if you keep lapping up the corporate business slant on information. Eventually, you're going to have to read something a little deeper than CNN or Fox news. Then, you'll get your Ron Paul argument for eliminating taxes, until then, they'll reply his sound bites and give him 20 seconds to answer complicated questions.

 

So for you it's normal that all American citizens have the same responsibilities, but only those born in the U.S. have the right to be president? You think it's o.k. for American citizen born outside the U.S. to become senator, representative, governors?

 

Yes, it's quite normal. If it were up to me, no one but a natural born citizen could run for any office. I wouldn't expect any less from any other country. Quite disturbing that this bothers anyone - it's basic sovereignty 101. Kind of like having a military to defend against invaders. Basic stuff here.

 

But that's exactly my point. The constitution is an important document, it's the framework of a society, but as a society change and evolve the constitution must be allowed to evolve as well. It's absurd to limit political actions to what the founding fathers thought was good 300 years ago, it has to evolve.

 

Another point you have yet to refute or even reply to. Yes it has to evolve. Like taking the money out of it. Taking the insane tax structure that drives a multi-billion dollar market alone - just the tax code itself creates an entire market - just by its complexity, that's it.

 

The constitution hasn't been "updated to meet the times", it's been "mangled to meet our whims". That's what we're arguing. Quit acting like we're suggesting it should never evolve. Evolution is small changes over time. The constitution hasn't evolved, it's ballooned with fat and grease just like americans. Look at the porkers over here, that's what our constitution looks like too. To hell with the consequences just shovel it in, the more the better...

 

The absurdity here is your logic that ideas 300 years ago don't apply today. No wonder we keep repeating history...people like you keep thinking you've "evolved" so much since then...

[PhDP]

Yes it did. It gave them the freedom to not worry about apportionment. It gave them the freedom to levy taxes without trying to be fair about it at all.

 

Apportionment is fair to you?

 

How would you repeal taxes without repealing the 16th amendment? I'd like to see that legal trick...

 

What legal trick? The 16th amendment doesn't give congress the right to levy income taxes; it only gives them the power to do so without apportionment. If you want to reduce or eliminate income taxes, you "just" need to win a majority in congress, its call democracy and because of it; the income tax is here to stay (or something similar).

[ParanoiA]

Apportionment is fair to you?

 

Might have sounded like it, but no, I would not argue that it's fair.

 

What legal trick? The 16th amendment doesn't give congress the right to levy income taxes; it only gives them the power to do so without apportionment.

 

Right, and income taxes require circumventing apportionment. So you peal off the layers of law in the order they were put on. Repealing the 16th amendment gets rid of income taxes - or at least without apportionment which will send them right back to the messes they were dealing with prior to 1913. It is accurate to say that the 16th amendment empowers the income tax.

 

Repealing the amendment is also a democratic process which is what is being proposed. No one is trying to "go around" the democratic process, rather are advocating the illegitimacy of the amendment and are trying to persuade others to agree.

 

Persuasion is kind of a weird word in politics because the gut reaction of the two party seige is to just pass laws and force compliance to their whims rather than to avoid mangling carefully written laws and actually persuade people to comply out of free will.

 

Our society, most particularly are current crop, is scared to death of freedom.