Republicans, do you really want Trump to win the ‘popular vote’?

[justoffal]

Doesn't matter....
The Apollo moon mission isn't mentioned there either....doesn't need to be.

Jo

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

Doesn't need to be there...it is the dominant trend of thousands of contributing legal decisions over the past 200 years. You seem to forget that the constitution also did not expressly guarantee black citizenship and yet anyone who reads it honestly will understand that it does.

Jo

Actually yeah it does, although it doesn't specify "black" because it doesn't need to. See Fourteenth Amendment, to wit:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Exactly.... It does not specify black but an honest reading of the Constitution by anyone with a brain understands that it's included.

Thanks for making my point.

Jo

 

[ThisIsMe]

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

No he is not correct. The only mention in the constitution is selection of electors.
There was never any intention written into that selection process for the electors to oppose the popular vote of the state. The founding fathers didn't expressly direct that because they probably figured only a retard wouldn't reach that conclusion.

The Constitution gives them the freedom to go out into the gutters and resurrect dead winos for electors if they so choose. It does not give those electors the right to vote in differentiation from the decision of the majority of the state's voters. Any legal forensic on the matter will quickly lead back to the right of the individual vote and will always come to the same conclusion.

Jo

PolitiFact - U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Why do you think we have the Federal Bench
and 200 years of decisions that bolster the right of the individual vote? YOU WILL LOSE THIS ARGUMENT IN SCOTUS EVERY TIME.

Jo

I'd like to read the court cases you mention. Could you link them please?

 

[Pogo]

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

You are delusional....200 years of court decisions makes you a confirmation bias idiot.

The Scotus will always champion the individual vote....you're just totally wrong.
This is as basic as the 2/3 vote bullshit.

Go for it dude! Trust me it will be struck down.

Jo

For the nineteenth time ---- go find me anywhere in the Constitution that gives you a vote for President.



ANYWHERE.

For the twentieth time....it doesn't need to be there any more than the Apollo moon mission does.

I'll tell you what is there though..2/3 required
To make that change. No 2/3.....no change.
But do knock yourself out for nothing. YOU WILL LOSE ON THIS ISSUE.

Jo

What you're saying here is 2/3 (of the states) have to agree to a change in the Constitution --- a change that would bring it in line with WHAT YOU THINK IT IS NOW, but is not. If it were, you could quote it. And you can't because it isn't.

There IS NO individual "right to vote" for President, and there never has been. EVER. At least not in the United States.

Now if you want to make that change with your required 2/3, have at it. I'll support it. But we live in the present, not the fantasy future.

 

[Pogo]

Nobody claimed that citizens have a Constitutional "right" to the Apollo moon mission.

Did they.

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

Doesn't need to be there...it is the dominant trend of thousands of contributing legal decisions over the past 200 years. You seem to forget that the constitution also did not expressly guarantee black citizenship and yet anyone who reads it honestly will understand that it does.

Jo

Actually yeah it does, although it doesn't specify "black" because it doesn't need to. See Fourteenth Amendment, to wit:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Exactly.... It does not specify black but an honest reading of the Constitution by anyone with a brain understands that it's included.

Thanks for making my point.

Jo

Like any legal document a constitution -- especially a Constitution --- MUST spell out the rules. There is no such thing as whipping a constitution together over lunch and going, "well, people will figure out what it means".

 

[basquebromance]

of course Trump hates losing the popular vote, and hates being impeached, but he's way too macho to show it!

 

[justoffal]

But they do have a constitutional right to select a President....even if it's not in there word for word. No one will succeed using your argument. SCOTUS will always prevail
Toward the individual....until 2/3 of elected officials tell them otherwise and I'm not talking commonwealth officials. A state cannot misrepresent it's voters. Never happen. Federal officials will not vote to weaken the federal system.

Jo

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

Doesn't need to be there...it is the dominant trend of thousands of contributing legal decisions over the past 200 years. You seem to forget that the constitution also did not expressly guarantee black citizenship and yet anyone who reads it honestly will understand that it does.

Jo

Actually yeah it does, although it doesn't specify "black" because it doesn't need to. See Fourteenth Amendment, to wit:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Exactly.... It does not specify black but an honest reading of the Constitution by anyone with a brain understands that it's included.

Thanks for making my point.

Jo

Like any legal document a constitution -- especially a Constitution --- MUST spell out the rules. There is no such thing as whipping a constitution together over lunch and going, "well, people will figure out what it means".

FAIL

The Hilarious attempt to disenfranchise the popular Vote.....so the popular vote can be elevated????

 

[justoffal]

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

No he is not correct. The only mention in the constitution is selection of electors.
There was never any intention written into that selection process for the electors to oppose the popular vote of the state. The founding fathers didn't expressly direct that because they probably figured only a retard wouldn't reach that conclusion.

The Constitution gives them the freedom to go out into the gutters and resurrect dead winos for electors if they so choose. It does not give those electors the right to vote in differentiation from the decision of the majority of the state's voters. Any legal forensic on the matter will quickly lead back to the right of the individual vote and will always come to the same conclusion.

Jo

PolitiFact - U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Why do you think we have the Federal Bench
and 200 years of decisions that bolster the right of the individual vote? YOU WILL LOSE THIS ARGUMENT IN SCOTUS EVERY TIME.

Jo

I'd like to read the court cases you mention. Could you link them please?

Don't be foolish you know what they are and you know where to find them.

Jo

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, pogo isnt wrong here. If you read the constitution, it actually doesnt mention citizen voting as part of electing a president. It says legislature chooses the electors and the electors choose the president. There are some scenarios, in case of a tie, that default to the states, but, in the normal scenario, it's the electors who decide. Also, it says the person with the second most number of votes becomes the vp. According to the constitution, the presidential candidate isnt supposed to choose his own running mate.

Of course, we've been doing it so long the way we are, it's pretty much solidified and nothing is going to change it, but, in what pogo is saying, he is correct, according to my reading of those passages.

No he is not correct. The only mention in the constitution is selection of electors.
There was never any intention written into that selection process for the electors to oppose the popular vote of the state. The founding fathers didn't expressly direct that because they probably figured only a retard wouldn't reach that conclusion.

The Constitution gives them the freedom to go out into the gutters and resurrect dead winos for electors if they so choose. It does not give those electors the right to vote in differentiation from the decision of the majority of the state's voters. Any legal forensic on the matter will quickly lead back to the right of the individual vote and will always come to the same conclusion.

Jo

PolitiFact - U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Why do you think we have the Federal Bench
and 200 years of decisions that bolster the right of the individual vote? YOU WILL LOSE THIS ARGUMENT IN SCOTUS EVERY TIME.

Jo

I'd like to read the court cases you mention. Could you link them please?

Don't be foolish you know what they are and you know where to find them.

Jo

Honestly I dont.

 

[Pogo]

You're completely wrong on every count.

There is *NO* --- ZERO --- Constitutional right for any citizen, or citizens collectively, to select a President. Never has been.
AGAIN, the Constitution has no requirement --- ZERO --- at all that there even be an election day for the ordinary citizen AT ALL. Does not exist. What the COTUS does say is that the individual states will select Electors --- HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT --- to vote for the President. It does *NOT* say, anywhere, that any state has to hold an election, or if it does, that those electors have to IN ANY WAY reflect the results of it. That's what you're not going to find, because it doesn't exist.

Again, I rattled off the names of several states that provably did not reflect their own election results. Actually the way the system works that can apply to AT LEAST 48 states who follow that moronic "winner take all" scheme.

SCOTUS has no bearing on any of that, and NO, there is no Constitutional citizen's right to select a President. Not in there, does not exist, NEVER DID exist. That's why I keep challenging you to find it --- it ain't in there.

Doesn't need to be there...it is the dominant trend of thousands of contributing legal decisions over the past 200 years. You seem to forget that the constitution also did not expressly guarantee black citizenship and yet anyone who reads it honestly will understand that it does.

Jo

Actually yeah it does, although it doesn't specify "black" because it doesn't need to. See Fourteenth Amendment, to wit:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Exactly.... It does not specify black but an honest reading of the Constitution by anyone with a brain understands that it's included.

Thanks for making my point.

Jo

Like any legal document a constitution -- especially a Constitution --- MUST spell out the rules. There is no such thing as whipping a constitution together over lunch and going, "well, people will figure out what it means".

FAIL

The Hilarious attempt to disenfranchise the popular Vote.....so the popular vote can be elevated????

"Fail" is a verb.

But as such it does describe what you have done with the challenge to show us anywhere -- ANYWHERE AT ALL -- the United States Constitution provides, instructs, prescribes or defends an individual's "right to vote" for a President.

And I knew you would fail at that, because IT. DOES. NOT. EXIST.

So yes, you fail. For the latest example thereof see your own post 167.

 

[Slyhunter]

of course Trump hates losing the popular vote, and hates being impeached, but he's way too macho to show it!

Are you ignoring that he set records in New Hampshire on voters? He got more votes then all his competitors combined.