Conservative Political Forum

General Category => The Constitution => Topic started by: Solar on March 24, 2018, 02:44:26 PM

Title: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on March 24, 2018, 02:44:26 PM
I'm posting this now because will soon to be in the news, there is currently a lawsuit floating through the court system.
We are no longer a Representative Govt as our Founders had envisioned.

Stand for What is Right or Settle for What is Left.

QuoteArticle the first ... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boldtruth.com%2FScreenShot003.png&hash=65783e9e422365f21aa891b09fc03e2b7f8394e2)

On June 8, 1789, James Madison, the congressman representing Virginia's 5th District, rose to speak in a session of the First Congress and advocated passage of the slate of amendments to the Constitution to be known to history as the Bill of Rights. On December 15, 1791, the requisite number of states (three-quarters, or nine states) ratified the amendments and thus the Bill of Rights became the constitutional law of the land.

Many Americans are familiar with the 10 amendments that comprise our current Bill of Rights, but what of the other two proposed amendments that didn't make the cut? What if one of them actually was ratified? What if recognition of that ratification would bring about a significant and fundamental change in the composition of the Congress?

One man, a self-described "Democratic-Republican," has filed suit in federal court to prove that such a scenario did indeed take place and that Article the First (the first of the 12 proposed amendments, 10 of which became the Bill of Rights) should be accepted as the constitutional law of the land.

First a bit of background. Article the First was the first of the slate of 12 proposed amendments passed by the House and Senate and sent to the states for ratification. Article the First deals with the proportioning of the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

In correspondence sent to this author, Frederick John LaVergne recounted events that he claims offer credible evidence of the ratification by the requisite number of states of one of those two originally rejected proposed amendments:

In the fall of 2011, the ratification records of Connecticut and Kentucky as concerns the "Articles of Amendment" — what we, today, refer to as "The Bill of Rights", were discovered hidden away in the drawers of the archives of those States.

In BOTH cases, the documents clearly demonstrate that "Article the First" had been passed in the affirmative by the Legislatures of those States, even though the US Government and history say they didn't. We can now prove different. [Emphasis in original.]

By ANY counting, that meant that 12 of the then 15 States voted to ratify "Article the First". [Emphasis in original.]

To become a part of the Constitution, an amendment must pass 75% of the States' Legislatures. 12 of 15 are 80% — clearly over the 75% threshold.

Therefore, "Article the First" has been the law of the land for over 220 years.

Much More~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14223-article-the-first-is-congress-ignoring-an-amendment-ratified-by-the-states

More on the subject.

http://www.boldtruth.com/
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: zewazir on April 04, 2018, 08:09:35 PM
There are currently 435 representatives, therefore more than 200. Check.

There are approximately 325 million people, so one representative for every 747,000 persons which is definitely less than 1 for every 50,000.  Again, check.

Within the requirements, even if we are ignoring it. So if it ends up being the First Amendment according to history, nothing will really change.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on April 04, 2018, 08:42:09 PM
Quote from: zewazir on April 04, 2018, 08:09:35 PM
There are currently 435 representatives, therefore more than 200. Check.

There are approximately 325 million people, so one representative for every 747,000 persons which is definitely less than 1 for every 50,000.  Again, check.

Within the requirements, even if we are ignoring it. So if it ends up being the First Amendment according to history, nothing will really change.
Yeah, nothing is going to change, simply because they love the power.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: supsalemgr on April 05, 2018, 04:36:52 AM
Quote from: zewazir on April 04, 2018, 08:09:35 PM
There are currently 435 representatives, therefore more than 200. Check.

There are approximately 325 million people, so one representative for every 747,000 persons which is definitely less than 1 for every 50,000.  Again, check.

Within the requirements, even if we are ignoring it. So if it ends up being the First Amendment according to history, nothing will really change.

Are you suggesting we expand the House to meet the 1/50,000 standard? That would just be adding to the swamp.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on April 05, 2018, 06:52:03 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 05, 2018, 04:36:52 AM
Are you suggesting we expand the House to meet the 1/50,000 standard? That would just be adding to the swamp.
I would love to see it.
Think Electoral college. This would mean more accountability, especially in places like Ca, where more than two-thirds of the state have no representation and the rest are over-represented via Gerrymandering.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: zewazir on April 05, 2018, 05:08:04 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 05, 2018, 04:36:52 AM
Are you suggesting we expand the House to meet the 1/50,000 standard? That would just be adding to the swamp.
You're misreading the requirement.  It say "no MORE than 1 per 50,000."  MORE than one per 50,000 would be like one per 49,000, or 40,000, whatever.

We have WAY, WAY below the "no more than 1 per 50,000" requirement, and over twice the minimum of 200 requirement.

Nothing would change, even if they find actual proof that article of the original bill were ratified.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 12:31:11 PM
There is a lot of misinformation being presented here.

This "Article the First" is already part of the US Constitution, and always has been:

Quote...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.  --- Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 [excerpt]

The above was actually proposed by George Washington during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  It was his only contribution to the US Constitution (other than presiding over the convention of course), establishing the minimum representation.

The only difference between the proposed amendment and what the US Constitution already contained was the number of Representatives upon reaching 100 that would be determined by Congress.  Congress did indeed establish that limit in the Apportionment Act of 1911 (Public Law 62–5, 37 Stat. 13), where they limited the House of Representatives to a maximum of 435 voting members, regardless of population.  The number of House Representatives stays fixed, and is divided up among the various States depending upon the percentage of their population.  In other words, with each passing generation your vote becomes worth less as each Representative now has to represent more.

With regard to "Article the Second", the States eventually did ratify that amendment, and it became the 27th Amendment in 1992.

Lastly, there was a great many more than twelve amendments proposed that were never ratified.  New York alone proposed more than forty amendments before voting to ratify the US Constitution.  Virginia proposed another twenty (including what became the First and Second Amendments).

So this thread is really about nothing.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on May 11, 2018, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 12:31:11 PM
There is a lot of misinformation being presented here.

This "Article the First" is already part of the US Constitution, and always has been:

The above was actually proposed by George Washington during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  It was his only contribution to the US Constitution (other than presiding over the convention of course), establishing the minimum representation.

The only difference between the proposed amendment and what the US Constitution already contained was the number of Representatives upon reaching 100 that would be determined by Congress.  Congress did indeed establish that limit in the Apportionment Act of 1911 (Public Law 62–5, 37 Stat. 13), where they limited the House of Representatives to a maximum of 435 voting members, regardless of population.  The number of House Representatives stays fixed, and is divided up among the various States depending upon the percentage of their population.  In other words, with each passing generation your vote becomes worth less as each Representative now has to represent more.

With regard to "Article the Second", the States eventually did ratify that amendment, and it became the 27th Amendment in 1992.

Lastly, there was a great many more than twelve amendments proposed that were never ratified.  New York alone proposed more than forty amendments before voting to ratify the US Constitution.  Virginia proposed another twenty (including what became the First and Second Amendments).

So this thread is really about nothing.
Then you missed my opening sentence, though I see now in rereading it, I failed to mention why it will be in the news.
The movement to split Ca is moving through the court system, called soj51, they are arguing that Congress illegally stole representation from rural voters by limiting the amount of representation, which is part of our argument for secession, or rather, forming an entirely new State, the State of Jefferson.
So yes, there is a reason for this article.

Welcome to the forum Glitch.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2018, 02:47:26 PM
Then you missed my opening sentence, though I see now in rereading it, I failed to mention why it will be in the news.
The movement to split Ca is moving through the court system, called soj51, they are arguing that Congress illegally stole representation from rural voters by limiting the amount of representation, which is part of our argument for secession, or rather, forming an entirely new State, the State of Jefferson.
So yes, there is a reason for this article.

Welcome to the forum Glitch.
Thank you for the welcome.

Congress did indeed limit/restrict representation with the Apportionment Act of 1911, but it was not "illegal" or unconstitutional.  The very fact that it is Public Law 62–5 makes it legal.  The US Constitution also does not place any upper limit on representation.  It only establishes the absolute minimum representation.  Which means that Congress may decide on any limit they desire, providing it is greater than 30,000 people per Representative or a minimum of one Representative per State.

With the current population of 325.7 million (2017), that works out to 748,736 people per US House Representative.  That is considerably more than minimum of 30,000 the US Constitution requires.

With regard to California splitting into two or more States, I refer you to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:

QuoteNew states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

I would not put much hope in the efforts to split apart California.  It seems highly unlikely to get congressional approval and without that approval it can't happen. 
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on May 11, 2018, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 03:05:48 PM
Thank you for the welcome.

Congress did indeed limit/restrict representation with the Apportionment Act of 1911, but it was not "illegal" or unconstitutional.  The very fact that it is Public Law 62–5 makes it legal.  The US Constitution also does not place any upper limit on representation.  It only establishes the absolute minimum representation.  Which means that Congress may decide on any limit they desire, providing it is greater than 30,000 people per Representative or a minimum of one Representative per State.

With the current population of 325.7 million (2017), that works out to 748,736 people per US House Representative.  That is considerably more than minimum of 30,000 the US Constitution requires.

With regard to California splitting into two or more States, I refer you to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:

I would not put much hope in the efforts to split apart California.  It seems highly unlikely to get congressional approval and without that approval it can't happen.
They are using West Virginia as part of their argument, and as you posted, "consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
Believe me, wiser minds are working on this, far wiser than you or me, and they're convinced we can win, and are doing it for free.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 03:50:24 PM
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2018, 03:16:03 PM
They are using West Virginia as part of their argument, and as you posted, "consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
Believe me, wiser minds are working on this, far wiser than you or me, and they're convinced we can win, and are doing it for free.
I don't think using West Virginia as part of their argument is going to work out as well as you might hope.  West Virginia only became a State after the Civil War began.  West Virginia became the only portion of a State to secede from the Confederate States.  Which is why a very diminished Congress gave their approval.

So unless California intends to start another Civil War before splitting off and seceding from the rest of California, it is not a very appropriate example to go by.  It is highly unlikely Congress is going to sympathize with the political differences between rural and urban, or consider that a worthy excuse to split a State apart.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on May 11, 2018, 03:55:01 PM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 03:50:24 PM
I don't think using West Virginia as part of their argument is going to work out as well as you might hope.  West Virginia only became a State after the Civil War began.  West Virginia became the only portion of a State to secede from the Confederate States.  Which is why a very diminished Congress gave their approval.

So unless California intends to start another Civil War before splitting off and seceding from the rest of California, it is not a very appropriate example to go by.  It is highly unlikely Congress is going to sympathize with the political differences between rural and urban, or consider that a worthy excuse to split a State apart.
Simply meaning, precedent as part of a bigger argument.
If you're interested, you can read a step by step account of court proceedings leading to this point at soj51.org.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 04:14:29 PM
Thanks, but I left California in 1991 with absolutely no intention of ever returning.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on May 11, 2018, 05:48:38 PM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 04:14:29 PM
Thanks, but I left California in 1991 with absolutely no intention of ever returning.
I stayed to fight. But then, I was born here and remember the State when it was Conservative and the only things political were reserved for politics.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: |Glitch| on May 12, 2018, 09:13:28 AM
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2018, 05:48:38 PM
I stayed to fight. But then, I was born here and remember the State when it was Conservative and the only things political were reserved for politics.
You were given a choice.  Many weren't, and California has never been conservative.  Not even when Reagan was Governor.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on May 12, 2018, 09:31:19 AM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 12, 2018, 09:13:28 AM
You were given a choice.  Many weren't, and California has never been conservative.  Not even when Reagan was Governor.
It still is.
It was around the early 60s, back when the majority of the nation was still Conservative. Marxists hadn't yet Gerrymandered voting districts, San Fran was still Libertarian, and the govt had yet to interfere with personal lives.
Reagan was not yet a Conservative, even as Governor, he was a big tax guy and was the first in the State to attack the 2nd.
But still, it was the people that were Conservative. If not for Gerrymandering, the state is still predominantly Conservative, it's just the coast, and a small geographical area, but they have the majority vote and pretty much dictate what the rest of the State does, which is why soj51 came to be.

Not much has changed, with the exception of a corrupt panel redoing the voter lines.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeocurrents.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FCalifornia-1988-2000-2004-Presidential-Elections.png&hash=89e29e517fc04a2a56d24ebe73f2f79130ce95cd)

(https://theelectoralmap.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/12-09-california-congressional.jpg?w=500)
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: |Glitch| on May 12, 2018, 10:31:22 AM
Quote from: Solar on May 12, 2018, 09:31:19 AM
It still is.
It was around the early 60s, back when the majority of the nation was still Conservative. Marxists hadn't yet Gerrymandered voting districts, San Fran was still Libertarian, and the govt had yet to interfere with personal lives.
Reagan was not yet a Conservative, even as Governor, he was a big tax guy and was the first in the State to attack the 2nd.
But still, it was the people that were Conservative. If not for Gerrymandering, the state is still predominantly Conservative, it's just the coast, and a small geographical area, but they have the majority vote and pretty much dictate what the rest of the State does, which is why soj51 came to be.

Not much has changed, with the exception of a corrupt panel redoing the voter lines.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeocurrents.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FCalifornia-1988-2000-2004-Presidential-Elections.png&hash=89e29e517fc04a2a56d24ebe73f2f79130ce95cd)

(https://theelectoralmap.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/12-09-california-congressional.jpg?w=500)
Gerrymandering in California began in the early 1960s with Governor Pat Brown (Governor Moonbeam's father) who was rabid Democrat.  You apparently have forgotten the liberal riots at Berzerkeley during the 1960s.  Even then San Francisco had a deep-seated hatred for the US and everything military.

I too was born in California, and the only time California can be construed to have been conservative was during the Civil War.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on May 12, 2018, 11:12:16 AM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 12, 2018, 10:31:22 AM
Gerrymandering in California began in the early 1960s with Governor Pat Brown (Governor Moonbeam's father) who was rabid Democrat.  You apparently have forgotten the liberal riots at Berzerkeley during the 1960s.  Even then San Francisco had a deep-seated hatred for the US and everything military.

I too was born in California, and the only time California can be construed to have been conservative was during the Civil War.
Of course Brown was a lib, but he was what we call today a moderate Pub. As to Berzrrkely, again, these were hotspots of the liberal bastion, but the rest of the State has and still is Solidly Conservative.
I can only assume you grew up in one of the lib rat nests, otherwise, you would know better than to assume the rest of the State is just another leftist shithole.
Even Sac, the Capitol was a Conservative town up until they elected Mayor Ann Rudin the leftist feminazi, which is about the time I bailed on the town and moved North, a literal opposite culturally speaking.
I still live here and I can attest to the fact that the Northern part of the State is still solidly Conservative. Why do you think we want secession?
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: |Glitch| on May 12, 2018, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: Solar on May 12, 2018, 11:12:16 AM
Of course Brown was a lib, but he was what we call today a moderate Pub. As to Berzrrkely, again, these were hotspots of the liberal bastion, but the rest of the State has and still is Solidly Conservative.
I can only assume you grew up in one of the lib rat nests, otherwise, you would know better than to assume the rest of the State is just another leftist shithole.
Even Sac, the Capitol was a Conservative town up until they elected Mayor Ann Rudin the leftist feminazi, which is about the time I bailed on the town and moved North, a literal opposite culturally speaking.
I still live here and I can attest to the fact that the Northern part of the State is still solidly Conservative. Why do you think we want secession?
As your maps clearly show the majority of the area is occupied by Republicans (not necessarily conservative) and small areas dominated by Democrats (who are definitely not conservative).  It is in those small areas where the highest populations are to be found, which is the cause of the mental disease of liberalism.

I grew up in a variety of different areas, but primarily rural.  I didn't even become aware of politics until Pat Brown was Governor.  I became a Goldwater Republican.  In 1989 when California banned, without a grandfather clause, several firearms that I had legally purchased in California years earlier I had three choices:
I chose option #3 and moved to Alaska in 1991.

The city of Sacramento may be conservative, but the State legislature that occupies the capital certainly isn't.  Conservatives have not been represented in California in more than 100 years.

California's predicament is not unlike the rest of the nation.  The overwhelming majority of the area of the US is occupied by primarily Republicans.  It is only in small pockets (area-wise) that are dominated by Democrats and those small pockets tend to be the high population areas.  The more urban the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Democrats.  The more rural the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Republicans.

Make no mistake, however, Republicans and conservative are not synonymous.  As is evident by all the RINOs currently in Congress.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: supsalemgr on May 12, 2018, 01:41:05 PM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 12, 2018, 01:31:30 PM
As your maps clearly show the majority of the area is occupied by Republicans (not necessarily conservative) and small areas dominated by Democrats (who are definitely not conservative).  It is in those small areas where the highest populations are to be found, which is the cause of the mental disease of liberalism.

I grew up in a variety of different areas, but primarily rural.  I didn't even become aware of politics until Pat Brown was Governor.  I became a Goldwater Republican.  In 1989 when California banned, without a grandfather clause, several firearms that I had legally purchased in California years earlier I had three choices:

  • Comply with the law and turn in my now banned firearms, and hope that I am not thrown in prison;
  • Keep my now illegal firearms and remain a criminal, hoping that I never get caught; or
  • Keep my firearms and find a State that recognizes my constitutionally protected individual right.
I chose option #3 and moved to Alaska in 1991.

The city of Sacramento may be conservative, but the State legislature that occupies the capital certainly isn't.  Conservatives have not been represented in California in more than 100 years.

California's predicament is not unlike the rest of the nation.  The overwhelming majority of the area of the US is occupied by primarily Republicans.  It is only in small pockets (area-wise) that are dominated by Democrats and those small pockets tend to be the high population areas.  The more urban the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Democrats.  The more rural the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Republicans.

Make no mistake, however, Republicans and conservative are not synonymous.  As is evident by all the RINOs currently in Congress.


You are in agreement with most of us here.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on May 12, 2018, 02:32:29 PM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 12, 2018, 01:31:30 PM
As your maps clearly show the majority of the area is occupied by Republicans (not necessarily conservative) and small areas dominated by Democrats (who are definitely not conservative).  It is in those small areas where the highest populations are to be found, which is the cause of the mental disease of liberalism.

I grew up in a variety of different areas, but primarily rural.  I didn't even become aware of politics until Pat Brown was Governor.  I became a Goldwater Republican.  In 1989 when California banned, without a grandfather clause, several firearms that I had legally purchased in California years earlier I had three choices:

  • Comply with the law and turn in my now banned firearms, and hope that I am not thrown in prison;
  • Keep my now illegal firearms and remain a criminal, hoping that I never get caught; or
  • Keep my firearms and find a State that recognizes my constitutionally protected individual right.
I chose option #3 and moved to Alaska in 1991.

The city of Sacramento may be conservative, but the State legislature that occupies the capital certainly isn't.  Conservatives have not been represented in California in more than 100 years.

California's predicament is not unlike the rest of the nation.  The overwhelming majority of the area of the US is occupied by primarily Republicans.  It is only in small pockets (area-wise) that are dominated by Democrats and those small pockets tend to be the high population areas.  The more urban the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Democrats.  The more rural the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Republicans.

Make no mistake, however, Republicans and conservative are not synonymous.  As is evident by all the RINOs currently in Congress.
Sac is no longer Conservative, the libs took over when SF housing prices skyrocketed.
This map says it all.

(https://i.imgur.com/mT9YELA.png)
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: zewazir on May 12, 2018, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Solar on May 12, 2018, 02:32:29 PM
Sac is no longer Conservative, the libs took over when SF housing prices skyrocketed.
This map says it all.

(https://i.imgur.com/mT9YELA.png)
Darn right this map says it all, as in the direct reason the Electoral College was designed as the means of electing a president.  In a purely popular vote design, the politics of high population density (progressive) would overwhelm the politics of low population density (conservative), creating an ignored, over taxed and over regulated second class of citizenry.  (Kind of like it is now. But without any recourse.)
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: |Glitch| on May 13, 2018, 12:36:50 AM
Quote from: zewazir on May 12, 2018, 09:50:26 PM
Darn right this map says it all, as in the direct reason the Electoral College was designed as the means of electing a president.  In a purely popular vote design, the politics of high population density (progressive) would overwhelm the politics of low population density (conservative), creating an ignored, over taxed and over regulated second class of citizenry.  (Kind of like it is now. But without any recourse.)
The popular vote for President was a creation of the States in 1824, and is not included in the US Constitution.  As far as the US Constitution is concerned, each State could determine their Electoral College delegates by flipping a coin.  It is entirely up to the State.  There is also nothing that binds a given State legislature to abiding by the will of the popular vote.

It is only because the States chose to use the popular vote to determine how their Electoral College delegates would be selected that we have a near balance between urban and rural voters.  You still can end up with States like California where the urban folks out number the rural folks, thus causing an imbalance.  But on a national level the Electoral College is pretty balanced between urban and rural because States chose to use the popular vote.

Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: supsalemgr on May 13, 2018, 04:10:48 AM
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 13, 2018, 12:36:50 AM
The popular vote for President was a creation of the States in 1824, and is not included in the US Constitution.  As far as the US Constitution is concerned, each State could determine their Electoral College delegates by flipping a coin.  It is entirely up to the State.  There is also nothing that binds a given State legislature to abiding by the will of the popular vote.

It is only because the States chose to use the popular vote to determine how their Electoral College delegates would be selected that we have a near balance between urban and rural voters.  You still can end up with States like California where the urban folks out number the rural folks, thus causing an imbalance.  But on a national level the Electoral College is pretty balanced between urban and rural because States chose to use the popular vote.

We have in existence today that states choose how to distribute electoral votes. A few states are not winner take all but distributed by congressional district.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on May 13, 2018, 06:43:16 AM
Quote from: zewazir on May 12, 2018, 09:50:26 PM
Darn right this map says it all, as in the direct reason the Electoral College was designed as the means of electing a president.  In a purely popular vote design, the politics of high population density (progressive) would overwhelm the politics of low population density (conservative), creating an ignored, over taxed and over regulated second class of citizenry.  (Kind of like it is now. But without any recourse.)
Interesting isn't it? While half the population may have a say, that half is condensed into what appears, to be less than 10% of the geologic topography.
Too bad we did away with the landowner vote.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: zewazir on May 13, 2018, 10:05:30 PM
Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2018, 06:43:16 AM
Interesting isn't it? While half the population may have a say, that half is condensed into what appears, to be less than 10% of the geologic topography.
Too bad we did away with the landowner vote.
One drawback of assuming everyone should have the right to vote is that by doing so they are influencing government, thus influencing the lives of others whom they not only do not know, but have no concept of how they live their lives. We give people the authority of political force without any due consideration whether they are responsible enough to exercise that authority.  Of course, then we edge up against the problem of how to determine what is a "responsible" citizen? By what measure, and who does the measuring?  Even limited democracy, as we find in a constitutional republic such as ours, has its sticky wickets.

My personal opinion, it was a mistake to lower the voting age to 18. But it is a very valid argument that if 18-year-olds are old enough to don a U.S. military uniform, they should have a say in the government that sends them who-knows-where to be shot at.  My answer to THAT argument, though, is to say "Fine. So 18 Y.O. cannot enlist in the military either."  But that's just me.
Title: UPP Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: Solar on August 08, 2018, 08:10:50 AM
This is great news! The soj51.org movement is gaining steam.

Update:

United States Supreme Court Issues Docket Number


Late last month, the United States Supreme Court issued a docket number for the Writ
of Mandamus filed by Citizens for Fair Representation (CFR).  The Writ asks that
SCOTUS direct the Federal Judge to have CFR's case v California Secretary of State
Alex Padilla, heard before a 3-Judge Court.  This was exciting news and it is
thought that CFR should hear from SCOTUS, within the next 60 days.
Title: Re: Article the First: Is Congress Ignoring an Amendment Ratified by the States?
Post by: T Hunt on August 08, 2018, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: zewazir on May 13, 2018, 10:05:30 PM
One drawback of assuming everyone should have the right to vote is that by doing so they are influencing government, thus influencing the lives of others whom they not only do not know, but have no concept of how they live their lives. We give people the authority of political force without any due consideration whether they are responsible enough to exercise that authority.  Of course, then we edge up against the problem of how to determine what is a "responsible" citizen? By what measure, and who does the measuring?  Even limited democracy, as we find in a constitutional republic such as ours, has its sticky wickets.

My personal opinion, it was a mistake to lower the voting age to 18. But it is a very valid argument that if 18-year-olds are old enough to don a U.S. military uniform, they should have a say in the government that sends them who-knows-where to be shot at.  My answer to THAT argument, though, is to say "Fine. So 18 Y.O. cannot enlist in the military either."  But that's just me.

Robert Hienlein answered both those questions in his book Starship Troopers, a must read for conservatives.

He says that only veterans shld vote because they have proven a willingness to place the wellfare of the country above their own wants and desires. According to him veterans are more likley to ask what they can fo for their country as opposed to the other way around.

As to the argument that if u are serving you shld vote, in Heinleins fictional world it was only veterans and not active duty personnel who cld vote, because according to him, if active soldiers cld vote then many wld vote not to go to war only out of a sense of self preservation, without considering the bigger picture.

So only veterans cld vote, and not while still on active duty.