Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
the “living constitution” theory doesn’t safeguard against tyranny, because obviously it slows whoever is in charge, to decide what the constitution means.
all of a sudden you’re worried about “the tyranny of the majority”, yet you hate the electoral
college, which was specifically designed to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. As was the fillibuster.
do you have ANY principles?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of American history.
The electoral college was a compromise instituted to bring the slave holding states into the Union.
The popu#^&la#^&tions in the North and South were approx#^&im#^&ately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bond#^&age. Because of its consid#^&er#^&able, nonvot#^&ing slave popu#^&la#^&tion, that region would have less clout under a popu#^&lar-vote system. The ulti#^&mate solu#^&tion was an indir#^&ect method of choos#^&ing the pres#^&id#^&ent, one that could lever#^&age the three-fifths comprom#^&ise, the Faus#^&tian bargain they’d already made to determ#^&ine how congres#^&sional seats would be appor#^&tioned. With about 93 percent of the coun#^&try’s slaves toil#^&ing in just five south#^&ern states, that region was the undoubted bene#^&fi#^&ciary of the comprom#^&ise, increas#^&ing the size of the South’s congres#^&sional deleg#^&a#^&tion by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choos#^&ing the pres#^&id#^&ent, it was all too easy for the deleg#^&ates to resort to the three-fifths comprom#^&ise as the found#^&a#^&tion. The pecu#^&liar system that emerged was the Elect#^&oral College.
Should blacks votes only count as 3/5?
Just what principles do you choose from the ones that were held in the late 1700s or even the 1950s, should Alabama still be able to say: No niggers, no Jews, no dogs?
Your aggrieved white manhood is the same as every right wing cult in American history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device