RayR wrote:Mob tyranny has everything to do with the electoral college according to you. You're concerned with the tyranny of uneducated hayseeds in flyover country stomping on those smart edumicted big city folk. I almost think you'd like to make those rubes into slaves of those smarty pants urbanites.
huh.... funny. I point out that it might be a bad idea to give the flyover states more votes than anyone else in the country, and you decide I want to enslave them. Good job there.
[quote
Don't complain to me, I didn't write the law. Since the "winner takes all" system of the states is not prohibited in the U.S. Constitution under the electoral college system, it passes to the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"[/quote] Who said it was against the constitution? Again... "It's not against the law!!" is the dumbest argument when the initial premise is "let's change these laws". Of course it isn't against the law. They're talking about making changes to existing laws.
Quote:
The original Constitution made no mention of the constitutionality of slavery or who has a right to vote. Those concerns were left to the states to deal with. Besides women not being allowed to vote, states made it highly difficult or impossible for free blacks to vote or engage in other civic functions like serving on a jury. Connecticut required adults to pass a literacy test and a one-year residency rule in order to qualify as a voter. This was also used to prevent those ignorant Irish immigrant rubes from voting too.
Illinois had its "Black Codes", which effectively blocked most free blacks from entering the state unless they filed for a necessary bond and received a "certificate of freedom" The bond would cost $1000.00 from a law passed in 1829. (an enormous sum back then) Even then they were refused suffrage.
New York State set a high property requirement for free blacks to vote which obviously most could not meet.
Pennsylvania outright denied free blacks the right to vote in the late 1830s.
what is your point here? I was merely pointing out that what is "constitutional" is a piss poor argument, since everything you listed above was "constitutional". And don't pretend the constitution wasn't complicit at the time in slavery. The 3/5ths law essentially was a "head nod" to finding it acceptable.
Quote:
I agree that, "the people in power got that way through the system and will not change it, as they will lose their power"
That's why it's quite apparent that what's left of the republic is doomed as the country rubes and the city rubes have no consciousness of the real problem of men loving power above all else.
I would think you would be on board with changes which shake up how people secure their power then.
