How the 12th Amendment was the beginning of Tyranny
A well-written article delving into just how quickly the Constitution was started on its road to ruin.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I can see that it's difficult enough to represent 30,000---but 275,000, no way. It's as well a large part of the problem the House has in budget and expenditure control and in oversight. They simply don't have enough Representatives to manage the work required of them.
Personally I think there are too many mountains made from molehills. Every time something goes slightly wrong people look to government for solutions and our reps are all too happy to help, of course for re-election votes. If our Federal government spent less time creating new "national (love your whatever) day" and stuck to only the most critical issues while insuring that what they do meets constitutional muster, we would have a much smaller, less intrusive government. I also believe this to be true at all levels of government.
It wasn't that there were any problems mentioned, more that if something existed, then we must have laws to control it. My immediate thought and question was--WHY.
Realize that the Gov't even regulates our bowel movements and urination--on up to our burial after we're dead and gone.
That being said, I very much object to having executive-branch agencies that act like legislatures and judiciaries. It's time to remand all those "regulatory duties" to Congressional committees, and remand enforcement of said "regulations" to the branch that should never have let go of them: the courts.
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
It's gone too far. We aren't going back to just upholding the Constitution. Something else will have to happen, and it won't be good.
As it is now with a quorum vote each rep is representing about 19 Green Bay Packer 70,000 seat stadiums worth of constituents. That's NOT representation, that's a needle in haystack.
Least with the original 30,000 constituents per rep a single such GB stadium would see over 2 reps representing them. On line voting is suddenly not doable for our reps? I ain't buying it.
I can see an outgrowth you might be hinting at as well - the tendency as a represented population gets larger while the number of delegates remains constant that the individual delegates would tend toward tyranny as well just based on the population base. It's like creating fiefdoms - especially among the low-information and welfare voters.
Also, granted that the exact language of the Constitution allows the states to choose electors any way they want, it is not clear how the present system of picking them as a whole group by party would have been avoided.
Any way you arrange it, an elector can run as an individual by pledging to vote for some candidate or for any candidate chosen by some party.
Moreover, it is at the state level that the ballots are created and distributed. Ideally, the President and Vice President would not be on the ballot at all, only the names of electors. But that has nothing to do with the 12th Amendment. If anything, it is a flaw in allowing states to control the election process. But I see no way around that.
I agree that the States have the ability to assign their electors any way they want - including by popular vote, but the Twelfth Amendment took that decision away from the States entirely.
Also do away with the legislative reform act of 1970 that recorded legislative votes. That allowed lobbyest to see how a congressman voted. If they voted in their favor, the money kept coming. This is also when SuperPacs came into being.
Restore the secret ballot.
My idea regarding money for elections is pretty simple: limit acceptable donations to eligible voters of that representative's precinct. If you aren't a voter or you are from another precinct, you have no vote - either at the ballot box or via your wallet. What I am sick of are people outside my voting area influencing my elections and the choice of my representatives when they aren't under said representative's jurisdiction.
youtube[dot]com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY
He mostly teaches about bitcoin, but he dabbles in other areas as well.
You can actually see when congress started doing Lobbyest bidding and ignoring the people.
With a secret ballot the lobbyest doesn't know if I voted for or against him.
I could say I did, I could say I tried to swing other votes, but sadly, they wouldn't go.
It use to be said, the worst job in America was a lobbyest. But that changed after the 1970 reform. This is also when SuperPac's came to be.
Prior to 1970, Congress did do the peoples work, so the vote showed by there actions.
The problem with you funding solution is, the NRA is a non-voting entity, but it's members are. You would prevent a group of like minded voters from pooling the resources.
Look what the democrats want to do with Union votes - do away with the secret ballot.
Congress used to always do a verbal vote, "Yeahs" and "Nays" the ones with the obviously more "yeahs" carried the vote. those weren't recorded. The only time they took a head count is when it was too close to call.
Not necessarily. My suggestion does not prevent 501c3 organizations from running so-called "issue" ads which don't promote a specific candidate. If the NRA wants to encourage its members within specific voting districts to vote one way or the other, I don't have a problem with that. The NRA can even endorse specific candidates. They just can't give candidates money as an organization. The same would apply to MoveOn.org (George Soros' political action group), labor unions (thus eliminating the dues for political purposes), etc. It might even eliminate the need for organizations to refrain from constitutionally-protected speech in order to maintain their "tax exempt" status - eliminating that current governmental control over free speech. It would focus back in on who actually takes part in the political discussion: individuals - not individuals "representing" groups.
What I want to do is eliminate donations from non-constituents. I don't want an ex- New York governor throwing money around in Virginia simply because he thinks he can influence an election to favor his ideology when it is the people of Virginia and not New York who will be directly affected by the decisions. He can donate to his choice for Representative of New York, Senator of New York, Governor of New York, and President of the United States, but he will be prohibited from donating to a prospective Representative et al of Virginia (or any other State).
As far as lobbyists go, I support full disclosure on all meetings with elected officials. Full agendas should be released - including those of visits to coffee shops, etc.
The other things I'd like to do is repeal the salaries, etc. of elected officials from being a Federal outlay and put those back on their individual States to fund - including their healthcare system decisions and retirement plans (if any). That would also include their staffs.
YES! If the states want to pay a high or low wage, it should be up to them.
NJ Congressmen are not in DC to do the bidding for the people of TN, so there is no reason for us to pay them.
>501c3
Problem, Louis Lerner gets to determine who can be a 501c. :-)
If you get a chance, watch the youtube vid and give me your feedback.. He makes a valid argument regarding the legislative reform act. Things did work better before 1970. If the goal is to eliminate regulations and such, getting rid of it might go a long way.
Yeah. And that can easily be rectified by revoking corporate taxes. Well, easily more in concept than practice... ;)
You in a right to work state?
If you are referring to ties among votes for President, this happened quite frequently in the first several elections and was one of the reasons cited for instituting the Twelfth Amendment. But I don't see a problem with Electoral College voters voting the same way as others or even caucusing - as long as they do it according to the rules developed by their individual states.
That, of course, threw the election to the House of Representatives. And they took until almost the last minute to make a decision. To avoid any other such crises, Congress drafted the Twelfth Amendment: "They shall name in their ballots,..." etc., etc.
Now in fact, George Washington didn't have a lick of trouble garnering enough support to elect and re-elect him President in the Elections of 1788 and 1792. In the Election of 1796, Thomas Jefferson got in as Vice-President because The Machine wasn't yet set up to vote for "Running Mates." But in 1800...!
That being said, I would love to see, as part of any system, electors running for the job of Elector in their own names, and even running specifically as uncommitted electors.
The second - and probably most important - result would be to exponentially increase the threat of Impeachment being taken seriously, as it would mean a change in power.