4 ms·

Denying voters any rights of voting is "in the constitution"? Welcome to your role as either a Nazi or a Mao-style communist. Lying is not a creative writing

Denying voters any rights of voting is "in the constitution"? Welcome to your role as either a Nazi or a Mao-style communist. Lying is not a creative writing class.

rayiner 3y ago
There is no “right to vote for every government official.” Judges aren’t elected. Until 1913, Senators weren’t either. And the President still isn’t elected by the public. The constitution empowers state legislatures to select presidential electors. Currently, those electors are selected based on a popular vote as a matter of state law. But that could be changed by the state legislatures at any time, because ultimately the power rests with them to select the federal president.
- klyrs 3y ago
  As you say, the power to pick electors is a matter delegated to state legislatures. Trump's efforts, as president, to replace those legally-selected electors with electors of his own choosing is, ipso facto, unconstitutional. If he had perhaps sought to convince those state legislatures to change their electoral process to favor him, that could have been constitutional. But the actions he undertook in his role as the head of the federal executive branch is clearly and egregiously in violation of the constitutional delegation of authority to state legislatures. Just because state law could be changed doesn't mean that the law was changed. And that is why he stands indicted for election interference in Georgia, it's why I hope he'll be indicted in other states, and why I hope he'll be in state penitentiary before January 2025. Because he's a criminal who has zero respect for the constitution. He even said it: > Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. He literally called for the termination of the constitution, and you're here saying that we really need to be focused on how an inscrutable segment of "far left voters" might possibly dislike the constitution even though you have no evidence to show on that?
  - rayiner 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 3y ago
      The implication that these are comparably impactful constitutional questions is risible. Further: zero is the number of Republicans that would accept the constitutionality of the argument you're making were the roles reversed. This whole thread of argument you're making is, and this is saying something, distinctively hard to assume good faith about.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        > The implication that these are comparably impactful constitutional questions is risible. A century of a growing administrative state and sweeping anti-democratic social changes that have no basis in the constitution is pretty impactful. > Further: zero is the number of Republicans that would accept the constitutionality of the argument you're making were the roles reversed. Maybe, but the roles are rarely reversed because they’re not nearly as creative in their legal positions. Even here—imagine what more you could justify by looking at the “penumbras” and “emanations” of that clause of Article II! (Or the second amendment, or the tenth amendment, etc.) Just imagine a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court that all approached the constitutional text the way Breyer did. > This whole thread of argument you're making is, and this is saying something, distinctively hard to assume good faith about. I’ve thought direct election of the President (and Senators) was stupid ever since 1L constitutional law. The GOP is just finally coming around.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Even here—imagine what more you could justify by looking at the “penumbras” and “emanations” of that clause of Article II! You could justify a theory of an immense array of independent Presidential powers hidden within the penumbras and emanations of the phrase “Commander-in-Chief”, despite that phrase being simply a limitation on who has the apex command position over the military under the regulation Congress is clearly and explicitly given the power to provide for it. Just to pick one example of where the Right has demonstrated the exact creativity you deny that they exercise.

Denying voters any rights of voting is "in the constitution"? Welcome to your role as either a Nazi or a Mao-style communist. Lying is not a creative writing class.

rayiner 3y ago

There is no “right to vote for every government official.” Judges aren’t elected. Until 1913, Senators weren’t either. And the President still isn’t elected by the public. The constitution empowers state legislatures to select presidential electors. Currently, those electors are selected based on a popular vote as a matter of state law. But that could be changed by the state legislatures at any time, because ultimately the power rests with them to select the federal president.

klyrs 3y ago
As you say, the power to pick electors is a matter delegated to state legislatures. Trump's efforts, as president, to replace those legally-selected electors with electors of his own choosing is, ipso facto, unconstitutional. If he had perhaps sought to convince those state legislatures to change their electoral process to favor him, that could have been constitutional. But the actions he undertook in his role as the head of the federal executive branch is clearly and egregiously in violation of the constitutional delegation of authority to state legislatures. Just because state law could be changed doesn't mean that the law was changed. And that is why he stands indicted for election interference in Georgia, it's why I hope he'll be indicted in other states, and why I hope he'll be in state penitentiary before January 2025. Because he's a criminal who has zero respect for the constitution. He even said it: > Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. He literally called for the termination of the constitution, and you're here saying that we really need to be focused on how an inscrutable segment of "far left voters" might possibly dislike the constitution even though you have no evidence to show on that?
- rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The implication that these are comparably impactful constitutional questions is risible. Further: zero is the number of Republicans that would accept the constitutionality of the argument you're making were the roles reversed. This whole thread of argument you're making is, and this is saying something, distinctively hard to assume good faith about.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      > The implication that these are comparably impactful constitutional questions is risible. A century of a growing administrative state and sweeping anti-democratic social changes that have no basis in the constitution is pretty impactful. > Further: zero is the number of Republicans that would accept the constitutionality of the argument you're making were the roles reversed. Maybe, but the roles are rarely reversed because they’re not nearly as creative in their legal positions. Even here—imagine what more you could justify by looking at the “penumbras” and “emanations” of that clause of Article II! (Or the second amendment, or the tenth amendment, etc.) Just imagine a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court that all approached the constitutional text the way Breyer did. > This whole thread of argument you're making is, and this is saying something, distinctively hard to assume good faith about. I’ve thought direct election of the President (and Senators) was stupid ever since 1L constitutional law. The GOP is just finally coming around.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Even here—imagine what more you could justify by looking at the “penumbras” and “emanations” of that clause of Article II! You could justify a theory of an immense array of independent Presidential powers hidden within the penumbras and emanations of the phrase “Commander-in-Chief”, despite that phrase being simply a limitation on who has the apex command position over the military under the regulation Congress is clearly and explicitly given the power to provide for it. Just to pick one example of where the Right has demonstrated the exact creativity you deny that they exercise.