Since the EC is one of the main subjects and substances of the Constitution itself, the entire Constitution would have to be shredded for the nazidrones to manage abolishing it so they can have their fascist ways forever. How likely is this to ever happen?
The likeliness will be a measure of it’s ongoing relative probability, measured by results of increasingly heavy doses of misinformation, as the media is certain to be brought to heel. At this point it’s probably around 50-50, but too early to call, an upward battle , certainly.
Most of it will be programmed, and pseudo national security breaches will help to push it foreward.
Highly unlikely. First off, we haven’t “shredded” a constitution since we got rid of the parliamentary system under the Articles of Confederation, it acted like the EU basically. That’s were you get the Federalist (a long extinct political party) vs Anti-Federalist (now called Democratic Party) debates.
We have a amendment process to the constitution, you can add and take away from it, such as the two prohibition of alcoholic drinks amendments. I personally think the nation would be colonizing Titan and sending probes to other Stars by now had we kept it.
In order to pass a amendment, you need three fourths of the states to approve it, or the states legislatures of two thirds. We have at least one amendment that’s been floating forever on the verge of being passed.
Democrats have failed utterly in controlling state legislatures. They have very few, largely due to the “Kropotkin Effect”, remember Kropotkin saying how great that all the Republicans were disempowered in California, and fleeing the state, while Democrats all over are swarming there? That state is worth 55 electoral votes for the presidency, but unfortunately is just one state. Many people moving from California originally born there, like myself (San Andreas) don’t stay their political persuasion.
It is going to be continuously difficult to stop a barrage of constitutional amendments in the horizon here from happening. Might not happen persay under Trump, but this is when talk is gonna start increasing, already has. Look it up on Google. It doesn’t matter is Democrats can stop a super majority hypothetically in Congress someday, constitution trumps everything Congress does. And you can pass a law repealing a constitutional feature.
This is what they don’t even comprehend at all, you can’t run a country by a few ivory castle Nietzschean Elites, state by state has been torn from them. That’s far worst than Trump having the presidency and ability to select supreme court justices, both houses under the Republicans. Soon the constitution will be too, and it us all due to the sickening hubris of the “Kropotkin Effect”. You don’t need liberals in california, you need the california liberals to move to Alabama or North Dakota or Iowa.
Doesn’t help states like Colorado or Washington are increasingly breaking ranks with the Democrats either for third party.
It’s over. Arrogance and the pure inhumanity of their system killed them, and no political party would every give up their great advantage in winning the presidency. We are more or less trapped with it till the US dissolves when the Empire of Botswana marches troops in from every direction in the yeah 2764.
I just don’t know how the electoral college works if a independent ever wins, has no political party as electors.
Is there any reason why abolishing the EC is more likely now than it was in 2000, when the DNC was equally enraged about losing an election?
Yes, it would seem to be very difficult.
For good measure.
::
Article II (Article 2 - Executive)
Section 1
1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
2: 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.
3: 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. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.8
4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office,9 the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Section 2
1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I wasn’t asking rhetorically, I’m seriously wondering if there’s any reason it’s more likely to happen now than 2000.
Hysteria is higher, but as I pointed out, they literally can’t pull it off anymore. Democrats had a better position under Bush-Gore because they were still trying to be a moderate party. That era is gone now. Big chunk of the country fled them under Bush, then Obama, and nobody cared. Now it is biting them in the butt.
And it’s clear now why they want to change it, simply to win. It can’t be hidden.
If they wanted long term prospects after Trump they really acted unwisely.
Still Hysteria can accomplish much. But with HRC it had the advantage of a big network, and it still lost.
Theyll need someone who is secretly hysterical.
I think Woopie Goldberg is going to run. She’s posturing pretty strongly.
That would actually be enormously annoying.
Trump may have to get a Constitutional Guard in place who is authorized to kill anyone advocating the abolishing of the Constitution. Maybe not. Maybe just do very well and show people it was wise of to Elders to make this federalized region called a nation of hope, which is more than a nation, but a world. It internalized the master-slave relation that Europe had going with the rest of the world into its own vast region where the South produced and the North profited and produced huge surplusses to forge world dominance. Then with these powers it could afford to liberate its slaves and now we have a totally unpredictable potency that can only guided by one principle, which is self-respect and clarity of purpose. The US is in Badioudrilliardeggerian terms the Present itself, has been since TV, and it is too big to predict the next episode. Thence I also ask.
I think they have more will to change it and less power -
but it stays relevant that they want it. It is the slave revolt. The US was designed to withstand a slave revolt. I think we may at one point even be grateful for the ability of delegates to decide for themselves. You saw most of the unfaithful ones were democrats. It’s possible that she’d been withheld the presidency even if she’d beaten Trump.
Would this be a violation or a solidification of the 9th Amendment?
Are you arguing against yourself now Fixed Cross?
Having a Constitutional Armed Guard under the 9th Amendment alone (just considering this stand alone) would obviously be a contradiction, but the Constitution alone isn’t the articles the supreme court goes by, it isn’t a religious document unless your a Mormon. We have a precedent via our revolution that a successful revolution, even via a nutjob like Kropotkin, can have force equal to that of the constitution. Hence, the Declaration of Independence is a legal document, and has been interpreted by the courts as such, in equal standing. We don’t recognize the Arrivals of Confederation as such, because it was willfully put aside by the states when the current constitution was ratified.
The only military or militia based guards we can put into place constitutionally are the ones stipulated, or the ones willing to submit to a governor, or president, either directly or through their officers, to the Congress directly (they don’t command troops under the current constitution, but nobody would question a force raised by Congress alone, save maybe the president or supreme court, merely out of precedent to the continental Congress) or a Sheriff, who can have his own posse.
This does not mean any militias external to this structure are unconstitutional, by the ninth admrndment alone, or the de jure military structure is playing constitutionally itself, that’s up to it’s conduct… just that the 9th admrndment in and of itself isn’t a mandate for armed provisioning to “defend” the constitution, as I find absolutely no language in it that suggests this is what anyone every intended, ever, with that amendment, and that further, the only way to use a militia, police force, or army to “restore” the constitution must by default in some way or manner trespass against the first 8 admendments is a horrid and deplorible manner.
We don’t really use spontaneously raised militias anymore to put down rebellions or to perform police actions, happened a few times in the late 18th and early 19th century. Alexander Hamilton was all happy about the prospect. Whiskey Rebellion is another case. Post civil war we had a case in West Virginia, was a literal battle that today local cops would deal with, believe it was a union dispute, but that relied on a militia. The Battle at the OK Corral was a Sheriff putting together a legal posse. Last time I think we did this was in Texas, back in the 50s or 60s, there was a sniper in the watch tower. One can argue due process wasn’t respected in any of these cases, but courts gave generally backed them on other clauses, never once have I heard a motion to the 9th.
The president has the power to restrict the enumerated rights as commander in chief of the armed forces, and this is a concept inherited from English common law, in which the courts submit for a time to the judgment of said commander. They can function as freely as said commander cares for them to be. Last time this has happened at the level of the Presidency was Abraham Lincoln. This sticks to the revolutionary doctrine in that it was the Magna Carta (no longer a governing document for the most part in English Common Law, which we inherited up to July 4th,1776) which would occasionally be suppressed partially, as seen fit by a commander.
Basically, what the courts have said post US Civil War is, only the president can restrict this, or his officers (commanders declaring military law locally, a Lt. just out of Officer Candidacy School can’t unilaterally declare military law over the 50 states for example, we heavily restrict through other laws).
Militias don’t have this power themselves. We would likely have no problem with Smears and his buddies shoeing off guns to one another at a gun show hearing a explosion, running outside to see a bunch of ISIS supporters, and shooting them all dead at the very moment they decide to launch a bid for a Caliphate of Birmingham, Alabama… as self defence is one of those ancient rights the 9th amendment and the principle of Natural Law as well as Cromwellian precedent preserves. You could nab any historian, bring him in as a expert witness, and they can rattle off 500 historical cases shoeing people have a right to defend themselves from death or conquest. But it doesn’t give the right explicitly to have arms or a militia either, that’s found elsewhere.
If anything, I think it would be the responsibility of the president, the military, law enforcement and the presidency to militantly attack any constitutional defensive force trying to apply itself through coercive force. Most non-align militias just play soldiers out in the countryside in feral land, or private property. Black Panthers don’t do kicking down doors, torturing and killing white people. The Naxi compounds tend to be pointlessly heavily armed like WW3 is about to break out, but do so on their own land. I don’t think most minorities are desperate to get into such places, and they’ve had several decades of deeply pointless patrols.
Most paramilitary security in the US is contracted under state and federal law, and must obey the orders of cops, in some states like California, they can literally abduct you and make you do whatever they want if your in a security uniform, your considered private police, minus the powers of arrest beyond citizens arrest.
That’s the confusion over Trump maintaining his private security force in conjunction with the Secret Service, plus federal law prohibiting non-police officers from entering a federal premise armed. His security either must be deputizes by the Capitol Police (could happen) or that he must declare the White House under martial law (sounds ominous, but practically is anyway, wouldn’t change a damn thing otherwise), if they are to remain legally armed.
Any questions?
The U.S. Military is already basically that.
Wow. If you don’t vote for a black lesbian woman, you’re three times as bigoted as if you didn’t vote for Hillary! She can’t lose!
Whoopi is a lesbo? Don’t tell me it was all a sister act on her part.
No, she has to leave the country, as she said she would do if Trump won.
Haha. I won’t hold my breath.
Condaleeza Rice would stand the best chance. But, she is smart enough to not run. Too bad we can’t draft presidents.
When something is new, there is exaggerated hope in it (or fear of it). After experiencing and getting used to something, the urge to find new hope elsewhere rises.
Looking forward to the mass emigration of everyone who said they would leave if Trump won.