Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (177581)	12/9/2005 2:39:30 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 281500

The US is a democratic republic. I've seen not a hint of an impediment to democracy within the structure of a republic. As far as a president not receiving a majority of the nationwide popular vote, this is nothing new. If the country could survive the 1824, it could survive 2000. I see no reason to trash the EC in favor of a national popular vote, or for that matter weaken any of the other states rights granted by the constitution.

To: michael97123 who wrote (177581)	12/9/2005 4:26:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Has it occurred to you that a proposed amendment must pass the Senate and far more states would be hurt by elimination of the EC than helped? Good luck. You're going to need it. A snowball in Hades has a better chance. More than 200 attempts have been made to get such a change. All, obviously, have failed. Here's some history on the 14th amendment: We return to 1865. As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, rump Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V's requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article's provision that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: "the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet." lewrockwell.com Or, to put it differently, it was ratified at gunpoint.