CNN Analysts Want Constitution Modernized ; Bash Second Amendment Wording, Electoral College
Continuing his push to "modernize the Constitution for the 21st century" by talking about "a few revisions," CNN's Fareed Zakaria hosted legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin for a liberal gripe session on his Sunday show Fareed Zakaria GPS. Both criticized the current Electoral College and state representation in the Senate, and also slammed the "grammatical mess" that is the Second Amendment.
One of the "kinks" of the American Constitution, Zakaria complained, is that "the Second Amendment is a grammatical mess, whatever you may think of the right to bear arms." This is liberal code for the amendment needs to be "updated" to their standards.
[Video below the break.]
The Second Amendment reads thus: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Does Zakaria has a problem with the third comma in the sentence? While the structure may seem odd, certainly it does not suggest a "grammatical mess."
So what does Zakaria like? Last week, he referenced Iceland's recent use of social media to gather ideas and opinions from its populace upon which to build its new constitution. He thinks it is possible to do the same in America to revise the Constitution – take ideas from people on Facebook and Twitter.
As NewsBusters reported last week, conservative talk show host Mark Levin slammed Zakaria for his suggestions to revise the Constitution. "The Constitution has already been shredded almost beyond recognition, and you want to finish the job," he berated the CNN pundit.
Meanwhile, CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin bashed the electoral college, "this crazy system," and the states representation in the Senate, calling that "worse than the House of Lords."
Toobin pulled out the "slavery" card, pointing at one flaw in the Constitutional Convention to prove his point that multiple serious flaws exist in the document. "People are so sensitive, but – and, you know, no one has greater reverence for it than I do, but it is worth remembering that in 1787, this wonderful convocation that we celebrate, they also enshrined slavery," he said. Hence, the Constitution has other serious flaws?
A transcript of the segment, which aired on June 26 at 1:46 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
FAREED ZAKARIA: Last week, we brought you the story of Iceland crowd-sourcing its new constitution using Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to determine what the Icelandic people want to see in their new, all-powerful document. So we thought we'd experiment in crowd-sourcing some amendments for the American Constitution. That inspired perhaps the strongest reaction that we have ever gotten here at GPS. Thousands and thousands of e-mails, tweets, Facebook messages and posts on our message board.
About one-third of you thought no revision was necessary and some expressed that opinion rather colorfully, to say the least. Among the other two-thirds, there were some very popular ideas for amendments. Eliminating the Electoral College, which was probably on top of the list. Other popular amendments included a ban on corporate donations in elections. A six year presidential term with no allowance for reelection. There were some more controversial ideas – a fat tax on unhealthy food, an upper age limit on elected officials, a ban on discrimination of left-handed people. I wasn't aware that that was a big problem. And my personal favorite was limit Zakaria to two stupid comments a month, which I (Unintelligible).
Anyway, to dig deeper on this, the legalities of amending the Constitution and whether or not it's really feasible, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst. Jeff, we're unusual as a country, we're a very young country, but we have a very old Constitution, and political system, if you think about it. Our Constitution, our political system, is older than every European country.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN senior legal analyst: We have the oldest written Constitution of any democracy in the world. And it's only been amended 27 times and it stood us in very good stead. But I think, you know, it is not sacrosanct and it is a good idea to think about what shouldn't have been done in the first place and what – how you can improve it.
ZAKARIA: Now, when you look at the, you know, I mean, the German Constitution apparently as I've read it once, is very similar to the American one, but it's sort of more modern, more streamlined. It doesn't have some of the kinks you know, for example, people point out that the Second Amendment is a grammatical mess, whatever you may think of the right to bear arms.
TOOBIN: It's nearly incomprehensible as a sentence, yes.
ZAKARIA: Right. So are there things that constitutional scholars look at and say, you know, these were really – these have been problems for 222 years?
TOOBIN: Well, certainly when it comes to the American Constitution, the two biggest controversies have always been in terms of the structure of the document, the Electoral College and the Senate, both of which give powers to states as states as opposed to individuals.
ZAKARIA: And, you know, the issue with the Senate, of course, is that you end up giving Wyoming's six million –
TOOBIN: Four hundred thousand people. Right? I just did the math. Wyoming has 400,000 people and two senators, and California has 36 million people and two senators. It is hard to justify that.
ZAKARIA: And the justification for that and for the Electoral College was, as you said, that states as states have some kind of inherent quality that deserves representation. And maybe that was true in the 18th Century, but today, I mean, you go – drive from one state to another, it's very difficult to see why they should have political rights as states.
TOOBIN: Right, and particularly small states. Even at the very beginning, the concern was at the time of the framing of the Constitution that New York and Virginia and Massachusetts, which were the big states, would overwhelm the smaller states. It's very hard to see how that applies today, particularly when comes to the Electoral College. Now, the argument in favor of the Electoral College used to be that, well, it gives small states a certain amount of power. When was the last time you saw a presidential candidate campaign in Wyoming or in Vermont or in Delaware? You know, we have presidential elections in about four or five states. You know, Ohio, Florida, a few other states in the Midwest, and that's it. All the rest of the states are completely irrelevant, including the small states.
ZAKARIA: So there's no real conceivable way in which that could change?
TOOBIN: I think the Electoral College, there is a conceivable way it will change, because there really is very hard to justify this crazy system where people in New York, in California, in Texas, are essentially irrelevant throughout all presidential campaigns except as fundraising sources. Just the way contemporary American politics is. New York, California are overwhelmingly Democratic states. No Republican is going to waste time campaigning there. Texas is a Republican state. So these states are ignored.
And there are millions and millions of voters in these states who get no attention and, you know, it really does affect our politics. The substance of our politics, as well. You know, for decades, we subsidized ethanol in I – because Iowa, where they grow a lot of corn, was such an important presidential state. So this has substantive impact as well as just sort of political science impact.
ZAKARIA: Would it be fair to say that our Senate is probably the most unrepresentative upper House of the advanced democracies, with the possible exception of Britain's House of Lords?
TOOBIN: Well, actually, Britain, ever since Tony Blair, is much more representative. Tony Blair got rid of the hereditary peers, whereas we still have this ludicrous disproportion in terms of small states and big states having the same amount – same number of senators. So I think we're actually worse than the House of Lords.
ZAKARIA: And it's interesting. You know, I taught briefly and one of the things I taught was a class on the American Constitution and the debates that came out of the American Constitution which went on for 200 years to the present. And America is unique in that it is founded not on blood and soil nationalism, but on political ideas and the Constitution is the heart of that, and that's why I think people are so sensitive to the idea of changing it.
TOOBIN: People are so sensitive, but – and, you know, no one has greater reverence for it than I do, but it is worth remembering that in 1787, this wonderful convocation that we celebrate, they also enshrined slavery. And for it took 100 years and a Civil War to get rid of that in the Constitution with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. And then it took another 100 years for those amendments to mean anything. I mean in 1860 – in the 1860s, they said black people could vote, but no one, no black people voted until the 1960s when, you know, Lyndon Johnson got the Voting Rights Act passed. So, yes, the Constitution is a wonderful document, but infallible – it never was and it still isn't.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Last obstacle standing.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:01pm.
Bambi and Soros HAVE to get rid of the right to keep and bear arms before they can complete the shift of the USSA to a Fascist state.
No way can they win as long as 250,000,000 people can shoot back.
Newsbusters please publish a list
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:38pm.
Newsbusters, PLEASE publish a list of recent articles and media statements about "updating" the Constitution.
Obviously, Center for American Progress and Journ0list (extant under another name, I'm sure) are engaged in a coordinated campaign to call for a "rewrite" of the Constitution.
To everyone here- Go out and buy Glenn Beck's and Joshua Charles' book, "The Original Argument." I have only just begun to read it, but it is excellent!
Ammo
Submitted by Franksam on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:06am.
The ammo shortage in the recent past tells me that many citizens have stockpiled ammo for any number of reasons, including yours.
popular vote?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:10pm.
The Lefties want to get rid of the electorial college and have a direct vote of the president. Then places like LA, Chicago, NYC can deliver the decisive votes in the election with their illegals, dead people, and just plain fraud.
In Illinois the only way for an actual Republican to win the governorship is to get enough votes that is greater than the margin of fraud. Any close election is always going to the democrats. So if we move to direct popular election of the President the amount of fraud nationwide will be insurmountable.
Big Cities
Submitted by kohler on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:35am.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, can be found by examining the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, "one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?"
What about the States?
Submitted by Suilbup on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:00pm.
The assent of the states was necessary to the creation of the federal government. We've already taken away the representation of states in the congress by changing election of senators to the popular vote. Heck, why even bother with states any more? If we're not going to give the states any voice in the election of the president, if we're going to pretend the 10th amendment doesn't exist, if we're going to let the federal government run our schools, our health care, and pick our meals for us - why bother with all these state governments at all? They just cost money, right? And while we're getting rid of the state governments, why not just "transform" our society completely? Nationalized health care, cap and trade, no energy creation/exploration, quatitative easing. This garbage has to stop somewhere. The electoral college is as good a stopping point as any - leave it alone. I'm sorry the liberals have a hard time understanding it. Maybe they should try to learn about it before they try to destroy it.
Federalism will be alive and well
Submitted by kohler on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 5:17pm.
The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
There are so many things
Submitted by Snappy on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:11pm.
There are so many things wrong with the arguments and justifications given Im not sure where to start. Suffice it to say, this is what happens when peope view the constitution and the federal government as institutions GIVING the people rights rather than viewing the beauty of this timeless document as one that doesnt give, but restricts the government from taking away.
Zacharia just
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:13pm.
wants the US to become like the other failed Muslim states. I would guess that he has not actually ever read the constitution, he just goes by what his handlers tell him, and what he gets in the morning White House talking points conference call.
And, apparently Toobin doesn't know why the legislative body of government was divided the way it was. He seems to be advocating for two Houses of Representatives.
Liberals would just LOVE a
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:24pm.
Liberals would just LOVE a chance to re-write the constitution!
You know, "clarify" just what speech is protected and what isn't; delineate just WHO should be allowed to own a gun, and enshrine the notion that redistribution of wealth is a necessary function of the government.
And that's just for starters!
PS: I can't think of a single thing that I care less about than what Fareed Zakaria thinks! I could go the next 2 years without ever hearing a word from him.
If you want an example of what our Constitution would . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:12pm.
. . . look like rewritten by Toobin, Zakaria, and other liberals, you need look no further than the EU's monstrosity. It was written by self-defined social democrats.
This from a foreigner??
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:31pm.
I don't use this term lightly, but we're getting suggestions about changing our Constitution from a muslim foreigner? Big surprise! We get told by a Muslim bogus potus that he wants to change our country and in order to do that, he'd have to change the Constitution. Might as well call him a Muslim foreigner as well.
To hell with them! And it's laughably ridiculous that they claim the Constitution is outdated, someone should remind them how old (and barbarically archaic) Islam is.
-Jon
Hands off the Constitution, you stinking, heathen commie scum
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:34pm.
If you want to modify a constitution, go live in someone else's country and modify theirs.
And I still do not get what is confusing about "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
-Unless you are trying to disarm the American people, as the feds are now getting ready to try and do.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Why is it, liberals....
Submitted by C-townGiant on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:55pm.
...that any time one of you or your ilk speaks of your (their) reverence/love/admiration for the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Founders thereof, it is always followed by the proverbial, "...but..."
This document, this compact, this contract between a government and its citizens was never meant to be a "living document" that would "change with the times" and become "more attuned to a modern world that has left it [the Constitution] in its wake."
Yes, those are all direct quotes I have heard from liberals, word for word (each of them is from a stump speech or debate between candidates in an election season).
Tell you what, liberals, you can have the coasts with your proverbial living document. We'll take the rest of the country with a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. In 10 years, we'll see who is still standing.
Fine, foreigner. Put a ;
Submitted by ant on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:43pm.
Fine, foreigner. Put a ; right before "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..". Doesn't change the facts.
Also doesn't reduce the fact that there are as many, if not more,threats facing the modern common American as there were in the late 1700's. I'm betting our Founders couldn't even foresee a Government that permits and encourages illegal colonization from Mexico and 'flash mobs'.
Jon, should the sheeple suddenly grow a brain and toss Obama...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:54pm.
...out on his red butt next November (I would prefer much sooner - like tomorrow morning), maybe Fareed and Cenk could team up and get him installed as Venezuela's next commie dictator, should Hugo Chavez go Tango Uniform down in that utopian paradise known as Cuba.
At least it would get their Muslim commie behinds out of America.
-All three of 'em.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
hey fakaria, the 10
Submitted by jkwtrading on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:46pm.
hey fakaria, the 10 amendments are god given rights. we don't ask anyone for their interpretation except GOD. Are you god? are you? if so you violated my god given rights.
Zakaria and Toobin...how very trite....
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:30pm.
...they want to shred the constitution because it is so inconvenient to their social engineering schemes. Funny how they are the first to hide behind it whenever they are called to account for their idiocy. Suddenly they start whining that they have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but of course they want to be relieved of the responsibility that comes with its exercise.
Speaking of Kinks, doesn't Jeffrey Toobin fit into that
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:44pm.
category? I'm not trying to cast aspersions. I only know what I read.
But then, what do you expect from a liberal?
Re-writing the Constitution
Submitted by trueconserv on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:57pm.
This just reiterates the notion that the typical liberal does not like the U.S. Constitution. If they could, they would just erase the original and use FDR's 2nd one instead.
They can't fathom giving Wyoming it's electoral votes, because, let's face it, they don't want anyone in that state to count. Only the left leaning northeastern states and the westcoast states....remember, those people in Ohio cling to their God and guns. The typical liberals sneers at anyone west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line. They think most people are stupid.
After reading this conversation, it is evident that neither one has even read The Federalist Papers as to how the founders came upon framing the Constitution in the first place. They are truly clueless. We know they do not like the 2nd Amendment, so naturally, they would say that it doesn't make sense to anyone. I think it's pretty much clear on what it's intention is.
The Constiution isn't a living or breathing document, as the liberals try to say it is. It was meant to last a very long time. That's why they hate it., because it gives little power to the federal government. It's a shame that Senators aren't elected by the states like it was originally intended, because the states should be represented in Congress. Senators usually represent lobbyists, unfortunately.
Last, the founders didn't want a democracy of mob rule, they were afraid of it and didn't want it at all. That's why small states and big states alike have two senators each.
Liberals make me sick.
Think again
Submitted by kohler on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:43am.
It is not necessary to update the Constitution to change the current presidential election system from the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method for awarding Electoral College votes . To satisfy the majority of Americans who do not support the current system, we do not need to abolish the Electoral College by constitutional amendment.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The Electoral College is a set of electors who vote for presidential candidates. Under the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska - 70%, DC - 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine - 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska - 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada - 72%, New Mexico - 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island - 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont - 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
ummm.. kohler...excuse me
Submitted by Suilbup on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:06pm.
but I'm pretty sure there are 57 states, right?
57 States??
Submitted by kohler on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:20pm.
how do come up with 57 states?
right kohler*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:28pm.
It's actually 58 states cause Obama said after 57 he still had one more to go.
Save the Electoral College
Submitted by nkviking75 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:58pm.
Eliminating the Electoral College would make small states irrelevant and would allow the large liberal cities to dominate the rest of the country. Judging by their governments, we'd be ruined in no time.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
the South could rise again
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:37pm.
Since the Constitution is a contract among the states voiding that contract frees the states to enter into the contract of their choice.
Only the South?
Submitted by Franksam on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:17am.
Throw in Alaska, Texas, and big parts of 'fly-over- country'. Getting rid of the electoral college would be a strong argument for secession. We might even get to see a few border wars, like they do in Africa.
Yes, Toobin, and which party "enshrined" slavery
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:45pm.
and tried for 100 years AFTER the civil war to keep "separate but equal" as the law of the land. Ever hear of Fulbright? Byrd? Al Gore, Sr? Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both Gore and Fulbright voted against it. Richard Nixon had civil rights as part of the 1960 Republican party planks; where was JFK and LBJ? Nowhere to be found. So keep telling me about the Founders, who compromised to build a country, and I will tell you about the racist Democrats who tried to tear it down with their racism.
Dennis Prager
The wisdom of the Constitution
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:46pm.
The fact that two thirds of the people want to make amendments to the Constitution is not the same as completely scrapping it and starting over. The stupidity of some of the suggestions (a ban on discrimination of left handed people) is exactly why the founders made amending the Constitution a somewhat difficult process. Those founders were smart men.
Rad...
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:30am.
Yup.
Hey, I am all for a ban on
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:00am.
Hey, I am all for a ban on dexters.
The Senate is worse than the
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:51pm.
The Senate is worse than the House of Lords to Toobin? The House of Lords is unelected, made up of hereditary peers and some lifetime peers who got their seats through political connection or patronage (or some arguably through merit, such as Baroness Margaret Thatcher).
CNN
Submitted by jessieH on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:56pm.
CNN can have all of the things they want, when they get their own country. This one is OURS!
CNN
Submitted by jessieH on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:58pm.
They want my guns? Come get them! I'll give them one piece at a time.
Liberals hate freedom
Submitted by Emil on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:29pm.
Liberals hate the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can bet any revisions the liberals want to make to either document will enhance the power of the government and reduce the freedom of the people. Can you envision them wanting to do anything else. They also want to include so called rights that are not in the Constitution and never have been except in the minds of liberals.
On this date...
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:32pm.
I doubt that Fareed has ever read Madison's notes from the convention. His head would explode... Wed June the 27th, 1787... http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_627.asp
Freedom interferes with the Liberal agenda!
Submitted by scottyusmc on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 6:41am.
Useful Liberal/Media idiots! Must do all they can to bring us under the control of the state! They can't stand the idea that someone might have a thought that is different from their enlightened vision. The 2nd Amendment is intended as a protection from an oppressive federal government.
In Other Words
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:58am.
In other words, WE (liberal Democrats) want to rewrite the Constitution so WE (liberal Democrats) never lose any elected offices again and can legally suppress all speech against our one-party rule.
Why is slavery
Submitted by misterbee241 on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:04am.
such a big bugaboo to the liberals when they all want to be enslaved to the federal government?
I'm frankly sick of it. The slavery issue was settled two centuries ago. But ignorant liberals just want to keep it alive.
If the Electoral College is removed it will be the end of the two party system in America. There will never be any thing other than a democrat in the White House. Sort of like elections in communist countries. You have a choice of whom to vote for but they're all communists. The same will be in America. No wonder liberals want the EC gone.
Current System does not protect two party system
Submitted by kohler on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:31am.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not protect the two-party system. It simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.
National Popular Vote
Submitted by kohler on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:33am.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. States have the responsibility to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about at least 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. I find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.
The bill uses the exclusive power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%,, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes - 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The homocidal 2nd amendment
Submitted by Giygas on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:04pm.
The homocidal 2nd amendment kills hundreds of Americans every year. Fire arms are a menace to public safety.
If you go to European countries like the United Kingdom, you will see that shootings are very rare. So rare that the police don't even need to carry guns.
The 2nd amendment kills far more people than it protects. Blame the second amendment on the shootings in Tucson, Virginia Tech, NIU, ect. Having guns for the purpose of protection makes the situation all the more dangerous, not just for the person with the gun, but also for the people in the vicinity.
We are no longer cowboys. The only people who should be authorized to carry guns are certified policemen and military personnel.
Those who defend the second amendment are advocates of deadly shootings.
Man up, Chauncey.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:12pm.
Even Rachel Maddow disagrees with you.
GiyGas =~ /Troll/
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:20pm.
Do Not Feed The Troll
P.S. - I know it's fun to toy with him, like when he got PWNed on his BS about Sarah Palin, but maybe we can try starving him of the attenton he so desperately yearns for.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
There is a process for
Submitted by TheReal_mojo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:53pm.
There is a process for "updating" the Constitution. It's been used 28 (or is it 29?) times. It's called "amending", and it's a long, involved and very iffy proposition, as the decades long failed push for the "ERA" demonstrates.
Federalism will be alive and well
Submitted by kohler on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 5:15pm.
The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).