Outdated constitution

[Boltlady]

Gosh, people need to know. Example of manipulation.


"Just in time for Constitution Day, CNN’s dwindling audience learned that the Consitution of the United States — the oldest written government charter in the world and the document that gave birth to the nation that has spread democracy around the globe — has become so “outdated” that it’s actually a “threat to democracy.”

Of course, that’s democracy as CNN’s scholars understand it. And you can’t spell ignorance without “C-N-N.”

CNN Gets Roasted for Absurd Chyron Warning Constitution is 'Outdated, Puts Democracy at Risk'

The genius of the Founding Fathers has never been easy for the left to accept. Now, they're attacking it a "threat."

www.westernjournal.com

 

[as seen on tv]

Gosh, people need to know. Example of manipulation.


"Just in time for Constitution Day, CNN’s dwindling audience learned that the Consitution of the United States — the oldest written government charter in the world and the document that gave birth to the nation that has spread democracy around the globe — has become so “outdated” that it’s actually a “threat to democracy.”

Of course, that’s democracy as CNN’s scholars understand it. And you can’t spell ignorance without “C-N-N.”

CNN Gets Roasted for Absurd Chyron Warning Constitution is 'Outdated, Puts Democracy at Risk'

The genius of the Founding Fathers has never been easy for the left to accept. Now, they're attacking it a "threat."

www.westernjournal.com

i'm behind the times. I thought the Magna Carta (UK, 1215 ad) was considered the oldest govt charter.

in any case, I'm not signing up for a constitutional rewrite. there are too may extremist groups. If we can't responsibly use the amendment process as it was designed, imagine what a farce a new constitutional convention will turn out to be?

"The right to not hear trigger words?"

 

[Boltlady]

i'm behind the times. I thought the Magna Carta (UK, 1215 ad) was considered the oldest govt charter.

in any case, I'm not signing up for a constitutional rewrite. there are too may extremist groups. If we can't responsibly use the amendment process as it was designed, imagine what a farce a new constitutional convention will turn out to be?

"The right to not hear trigger words?"

One purpose of this post was to let folks see what they consider a "reliable" source. I get tired of people questioning sources all the time instead of paying attention to what might be some good information. Yet they tend to quote CNN which I consider marginal at best.

In the meantime for those who tend to trash the constitution they need to either get busy with new amendments or write and vote on a whole new one. If they can't do that they need keep quiet about the whole thing and just obey it.

 

[middleview]

Gosh, people need to know. Example of manipulation.


"Just in time for Constitution Day, CNN’s dwindling audience learned that the Consitution of the United States — the oldest written government charter in the world and the document that gave birth to the nation that has spread democracy around the globe — has become so “outdated” that it’s actually a “threat to democracy.”

Of course, that’s democracy as CNN’s scholars understand it. And you can’t spell ignorance without “C-N-N.”

CNN Gets Roasted for Absurd Chyron Warning Constitution is 'Outdated, Puts Democracy at Risk'

The genius of the Founding Fathers has never been easy for the left to accept. Now, they're attacking it a "threat."

www.westernjournal.com

The word came on “Newsroom,” anchored by former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Acosta interviewed two Harvard professors of government who are of the opinion that the grand system of compromise, checks and balances devised by the Founders in Philadelphia in 1787 is as obsolete as the quill pens they used to write it down.

As the article stated...the two scholars work at Harvard...not CNN.

Fox reported that Dominion election machines flipped votes, InfoMax reported Chinese thermostats were used to hack Dominion systems and changed vote totals, OANN reported Italian intel agencies were involved in hacking systems.

Meet the Press just gave Trump an hour to spew his election fraud bullshit.

Their job is not to pick sides, it is to allow us to hear all sides...They are at their best when they do that...

I think a constitutional convention, starting with the current constitution and only modifying the amendments that are severely out of touch. Do we really want the 2nd amendment to require citizens join a militia to own a gun? Could we eliminate the 18th and 21st amendments?

 

[Boltlady]

The word came on “Newsroom,” anchored by former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Acosta interviewed two Harvard professors of government who are of the opinion that the grand system of compromise, checks and balances devised by the Founders in Philadelphia in 1787 is as obsolete as the quill pens they used to write it down.

As the article stated...the two scholars work at Harvard...not CNN.

Fox reported that Dominion election machines flipped votes, InfoMax reported Chinese thermostats were used to hack Dominion systems and changed vote totals, OANN reported Italian intel agencies were involved in hacking systems.

Meet the Press just gave Trump an hour to spew his election fraud bullshit.

Their job is not to pick sides, it is to allow us to hear all sides...They are at their best when they do that...

I think a constitutional convention, starting with the current constitution and only modifying the amendments that are severely out of touch. Do we really want the 2nd amendment to require citizens join a militia to own a gun? Could we eliminate the 18th and 21st amendments?

Parents should consider whether the high cost of Harvard is with it.

 

[PhilFish]

Parents should consider whether the high cost of Harvard is with it.

depends on the pursuit...generally worth it i think

 

[Zam-Zam]

I think the idea that the constitution is outdated...is an outdated opinion. A few eggheads bring this up every now and then to draw some attention to themselves, quite often on a forum that is widely ignored (like CNN), and the constitution continues to be what it has always been.

Fifty years from now those "learned professors" will be dead and gone, and the constitution will be in perfect health.

It's all good.

 

[middleview]

I think the idea that the constitution is outdated...is an outdated opinion. A few eggheads bring this up every now and then to draw some attention to themselves, quite often on a forum that is widely ignored (like CNN), and the constitution continues to be what it has always been.

Fifty years from now those "learned professors" will be dead and gone, and the constitution will be in perfect health.

It's all good.

The electoral college is a prime example of a necessary change.

 

[PhilFish]

The electoral college is a prime example of a necessary change.

Not at all. It serves as a balance preventing any one area of concentration from overtaking the whole

 

[Zam-Zam]

The electoral college is a prime example of a necessary change.

Nope.

 

[middleview]

Nope.

It was added in to encourage slave states to join the confederacy. Slavey was abolished in 1865. So why is it still in force? Why would you want to include non-voters in the numbers used to calculate representatives in congress? Non-citizens as well....

The popular vote is used to elect every other political candidate...why not the president?

 

[middleview]

Not at all. It serves as a balance preventing any one area of concentration from overtaking the whole

That is done through the Senate...every state gets two senators....not by giving the citizens of some states more influence over who is elected president than others.

There were a number of issues in 1776 that do not exist today...for one the length of time it took to travel from the various colonies to DC to vote. The other was slave states had fewer voters...so hey, let's count slaves.

At present there is no value in being a republican and casting a vote in California or a democrat in Texas. People vote as individuals, not as members of a concentration of voters. Why is one voter in California not worth as much as a voter in Wyoming?

Most states are considered one party states in that the vote for one party or the other is guaranteed. Campaign events were held in just 12 states...only where the vote is close.

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote | National Popular Vote

 

[Zam-Zam]

It was added in to encourage slave states to join the confederacy. Slavey was abolished in 1865. So why is it still in force? Why would you want to include non-voters in the numbers used to calculate representatives in congress? Non-citizens as well....

The popular vote is used to elect every other political candidate...why not the president?

1. It requires a distribution of popular support.
Because of the structure of the Electoral College, a President must receive national support to win an election. This promotes a healthy cohesiveness within the country because there must be a distribution of that support so that a majority of electoral votes can be received. Without this structure, a candidate would spend most of their time in large population centers campaigning because that’s where the popular vote would be won.

2. It gives minority interests a say in the election.
Since a national level of support is required because of the Electoral College, minority causes, interests, and concerns are given a voice that reaches a national level. The votes of a small minority in a state can sway the difference in an election, especially since most states award all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This allows a certain amount of leverage to be used during the election that may not be possible in general society otherwise.

3. It encourages political stability.
The United States focuses on a two-party system because of the structure in the Electoral College. That doesn’t mean other political parties can’t get involved in the election. It just means most candidates that are elected will be either a Republican or a Democrat. The only independent candidate to be elected President in US history was George Washington. The last third-party candidate to win a state’s electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. This means there is a reasonable certainty as to how the government will run, no matter which major party in the US winds up with the white house.

4. It maintains a system of national representation.
The United States was founded on the idea that taxation without representation was unfair. It was part of the reason for the rebellion of the colonies in the first place. With the Electoral College, a general consensus can be maintained so the structure of the government and the independent political powers of each state and local government can continue existing. In national representation, each state and population district receives equal representation, in either the house or the senate, and that allows individual voters to still have a say in what happens.


5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Electoral College – Vittana.org


I am perfectly fine with a system that gives a voice to "flyover country" and not allow pandering to local interests in California and New York decide every national election.

 

[sensible don]

Gosh, people need to know. Example of manipulation.


"Just in time for Constitution Day, CNN’s dwindling audience learned that the Consitution of the United States — the oldest written government charter in the world and the document that gave birth to the nation that has spread democracy around the globe — has become so “outdated” that it’s actually a “threat to democracy.”

Of course, that’s democracy as CNN’s scholars understand it. And you can’t spell ignorance without “C-N-N.”

CNN Gets Roasted for Absurd Chyron Warning Constitution is 'Outdated, Puts Democracy at Risk'

The genius of the Founding Fathers has never been easy for the left to accept. Now, they're attacking it a "threat."

www.westernjournal.com

Hey who showed you that those 3 letters were in " ignorance " perhaps your brink of Obama led WW2 orange messiah ?

 

[middleview]

1. It requires a distribution of popular support.
Because of the structure of the Electoral College, a President must receive national support to win an election. This promotes a healthy cohesiveness within the country because there must be a distribution of that support so that a majority of electoral votes can be received. Without this structure, a candidate would spend most of their time in large population centers campaigning because that’s where the popular vote would be won.

2. It gives minority interests a say in the election.
Since a national level of support is required because of the Electoral College, minority causes, interests, and concerns are given a voice that reaches a national level. The votes of a small minority in a state can sway the difference in an election, especially since most states award all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This allows a certain amount of leverage to be used during the election that may not be possible in general society otherwise.

3. It encourages political stability.
The United States focuses on a two-party system because of the structure in the Electoral College. That doesn’t mean other political parties can’t get involved in the election. It just means most candidates that are elected will be either a Republican or a Democrat. The only independent candidate to be elected President in US history was George Washington. The last third-party candidate to win a state’s electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. This means there is a reasonable certainty as to how the government will run, no matter which major party in the US winds up with the white house.

4. It maintains a system of national representation.
The United States was founded on the idea that taxation without representation was unfair. It was part of the reason for the rebellion of the colonies in the first place. With the Electoral College, a general consensus can be maintained so the structure of the government and the independent political powers of each state and local government can continue existing. In national representation, each state and population district receives equal representation, in either the house or the senate, and that allows individual voters to still have a say in what happens.


5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Electoral College – Vittana.org


I am perfectly fine with a system that gives a voice to "flyover country" and not allow pandering to local interests in California and New York decide every national election.

1. As I said...it discourages republicans in California...or democrats in Texas. How many people just stay home because they live in a one party state? A popular vote means the candidate would go where the voters are. Nobody would win solely based on the voters in the cities. There is actually a pretty even breakdown between rural and urban voters.
2. Almost all states go with winner take all. That disenfranchises the minority voters.
3. political stability is a desired outcome? A dictatorship would do that for ya. Trump was a radical departure from stability and he actually lost the popular vote.
4. National representation? By winning the EC, but losing the vote of the people, seems pretty divisive to me.

 

[sensible don]

1. As I said...it discourages republicans in California...or democrats in Texas. How many people just stay home because they live in a one party state? A popular vote means the candidate would go where the voters are. Nobody would win solely based on the voters in the cities. There is actually a pretty even breakdown between rural and urban voters.
2. Almost all states go with winner take all. That disenfranchises the minority voters.
3. political stability is a desired outcome? A dictatorship would do that for ya. Trump was a radical departure from stability and he actually lost the popular vote.
4. National representation? By winning the EC, but losing the vote of the people, seems pretty divisive to me.

They would never win another major election if the did not have the gerrymandered electoral college crutch. There are only so many angry , old , obese , hot pocket stuffing guys ya know !

 

[Zam-Zam]

1. As I said...it discourages republicans in California...or democrats in Texas. How many people just stay home because they live in a one party state? A popular vote means the candidate would go where the voters are. Nobody would win solely based on the voters in the cities. There is actually a pretty even breakdown between rural and urban voters.
2. Almost all states go with winner take all. That disenfranchises the minority voters.
3. political stability is a desired outcome? A dictatorship would do that for ya. Trump was a radical departure from stability and he actually lost the popular vote.
4. National representation? By winning the EC, but losing the vote of the people, seems pretty divisive to me.

We disagree.

No worries - It's all good.

 

[Dawg]

Nope.

MV and leftist don't want fly over states voters vote to count

 

[middleview]

MV and leftist don't want fly over states voters vote to count

Dawg and righties don't want dem votes in Texas to count...

If a voter in any of the fly over states voted for the loser you'd say their vote didn't count? The only way their votes count is if they voted as the rest of the majority in their state. What if they voted as the majority of the country did and the loser still won the EC?

 

[EatTheRich]

1. It requires a distribution of popular support.
Because of the structure of the Electoral College, a President must receive national support to win an election. This promotes a healthy cohesiveness within the country because there must be a distribution of that support so that a majority of electoral votes can be received. Without this structure, a candidate would spend most of their time in large population centers campaigning because that’s where the popular vote would be won.

2. It gives minority interests a say in the election.
Since a national level of support is required because of the Electoral College, minority causes, interests, and concerns are given a voice that reaches a national level. The votes of a small minority in a state can sway the difference in an election, especially since most states award all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This allows a certain amount of leverage to be used during the election that may not be possible in general society otherwise.

3. It encourages political stability.
The United States focuses on a two-party system because of the structure in the Electoral College. That doesn’t mean other political parties can’t get involved in the election. It just means most candidates that are elected will be either a Republican or a Democrat. The only independent candidate to be elected President in US history was George Washington. The last third-party candidate to win a state’s electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. This means there is a reasonable certainty as to how the government will run, no matter which major party in the US winds up with the white house.

4. It maintains a system of national representation.
The United States was founded on the idea that taxation without representation was unfair. It was part of the reason for the rebellion of the colonies in the first place. With the Electoral College, a general consensus can be maintained so the structure of the government and the independent political powers of each state and local government can continue existing. In national representation, each state and population district receives equal representation, in either the house or the senate, and that allows individual voters to still have a say in what happens.


5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Electoral College – Vittana.org


I am perfectly fine with a system that gives a voice to "flyover country" and not allow pandering to local interests in California and New York decide every national election.

1. Not really. It just gives a homogeneous, politically backward rural mass a special advantage at the expense of the big urban centers that are the loci of almost all the diversity, allowing candidates to focus on winning over that one uniform sector while ignoring the many urban groups a candidate needs to please to win a popular election.
2. Another way to put it would be that it gives special interests leverage to usurp political power at the expense of the majority.
3. In other words, it prevents voters fed up with the same old, same old from voting for change by entrenching the bipartisan Establishment.
4. By privileging states at the expense of individuals, it helps cement in place a repressive, statist system of federalism that by turning states into independent centers of class warfare help prevent the oppressed from concentrating their resistance on the national government.