Re: Censorship Communist style

On 2021-01-09 21:47, Ken Springer wrote:
> On 1/9/21 4:12 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>> On 2021-01-09 17:45, Ken Springer wrote:
>>> IIRC, if you take a *strict* view of the Constitution, the popular vote
>>> in a state can be ignored by the state legislature in picking the
>>> electors to the Electoral College. [...]
>>
>> IOW, the strict view is that the legislature of each State decides how
>> to interpret or apply the popular vote to their Electoral College. 
> 
> Not originally.  Summarizing here, since I'm too lazy to look details up 
> again (LOL), state legislatures would appoint/elect/????  "Electors" to 
> vote for who would be President and Vice-President.  There was no 
> requirement to even pay attention to the popular vote.  I can't say for 
> sure every state even had a popular vote.  Also not well known, I think, 
> is at first the President and Vice-President were elected separately. So 
> it was possible to those positions filled by individuals of different 
> parties.  This was later changed, I believe by Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Initially, there was no Electoral College, it came into being sometime 
> after the Civil War, I believe.
> 
> Also not well known, but the framers of the Constitution considered the 
> popular vote solution, but instead went with the Electors.  So we have 
> an "indirect" election of a President, not a "direct" election.  Smaller 
> states did not want larger states to have total control, among other 
> issues.
> 
> Case in point for me...  Living in the mountains of Colorado, do you 
> think I want the forestry management policies of California?  :-)
> 
> When you read the Constitution, you become very aware the framers did 
> not expect the county to basically become a 2 party county.  In the case 
> no candidate gets the majority, the top 5 candidate names are taken to 
> the House of Representatives (I believe it's the House), and the House 
> elects the President.
> 
> And the US is *not* a two-party country, although you wouldn't know that 
> from the national media.  Colorado, in fact, had 21 candidates for 
> President on the ballot.  Including Kanye West!  LOL
> 
> I have to give Fox credit, in 2016, they interviewed some of the lesser 
> known candidates, including the Socialist, Libertarian, and Green party 
> candidates.  I watched them.  I don't know what the other national news 
> outlets did.
> 
> So while we make a big issue of having a free press, we don't get a 
> press that presents *all* sides of a question so the populace can make a 
> better informed decision at the polls.
> 
>> That
>> implies that each State can legislate how the Electors shall cast their
>> votes. 
> 
> As far as the US Constitution is concerned, yes.  However, now all 
> states, by different manners, choose the electors by popular vote.  I do 
> not know if thee were any lawsuits over this, or if any of the 
> unratified amendments address this.


Article Section i: "....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...."

The question of whom they shall vote for is left open. Most State 
legislatures eventually closed this loophole.

>> AFAIK, most have legislated that the winner takes all the
>> Electoral Votes. 
> 
> I believe it's either 3 or 5 states do otherwise.
> 
>> The Colorado case you mention implies that Colorado did
>> not mandate that Electors vote according to the popular vote. Id that
>> the case?
> 
> Colorado does, but the one elector decided, for what ever reason, he/she 
> would not obey that, and the court upheld the choice.

Interesting. The Court's decision in effect limited the State's right to 
determine how the Electors shall carry out their duties. If this was not 
a SCOTUS decision, the issue has not been settled.

> Personal suspicion, you can't force someone to vote a certain way.

You can, if the person is appointed as an agent.

> The US is not a democracy.  The US is a Democratic Republic, comprised 
> of 50 free and independent states.  Another fact the news media never 
> mentions.

Erm, I've heard this opinion voiced frequently by NYT opinion 
columnists, among other places. :-)

 >
Although you may hear it on Fox. [....]

One hears a lot of things on Fox.

Anyhow, I think that's a distinction without a difference. A Republic 
differs in  two ways from a Monarchy: a) the Head of State is elected; 
and b) the people are Citizens, not Subjects. That is, their loyalty is 
to the State, not to the Head of Sate.

Whether a Republic is or is not a democracy depends entirely on how it 
has defined who shall vote, in what manner, and for what office(s). This 
makes "democracy" a matter of degree and variation.

As for the "free and independent states", from here in Canada it doesn't 
look like that at all. For example, Colorado cannot decide to wage war 
on any other State (within or outside the USA). Large parts of its land 
are under Federal jurisdiction. Many powers were from the beginning 
circumscribed, and many more have been limited by Federal law and SCOTUS 
decisions. For example, while Colorado can do what it likes with its 
education system, it cannot claim Federal subsidies for education unless 
it conforms to Federal rules about education. Also keep in mind that 
unlike any of the thirteen original States, Colorado is a creature of 
the US government.

Moreover, and IMO of crucial importance, Colorado can regulate trade 
only within its own borders. AIUI, Colorado cannot levy customs 
duties/etc on imported and exported goods. It can regulate what's sold 
within the State, which in effect regulates the import/export by 
adjusting incentives for traders. By contrast, the Federal government 
has the right to regulate inter-State trade, and Federal law can and 
does override State law (e.g., Federal labour law applies to any railway 
that crosses State boundaries.)
[...]

We could go on, but probably shouldn't. :-)

For the record, I read the US Constitution at least once every year.

Best,

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
“When I am playing with my cat, how do I know she is not playing with me?
(Montaigne)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general