majorspark;444325 wrote:Incorrect. They are subject to state power. Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) This decision affirmed that constitutionally state electors are representatives of their respective states. Therefore they vote under the rules that their respective states define. They can vote independently only if their state allows it.

The SCOTUS ruled:
Presidential Electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President, but they are not federal officers. They act by authority of the state, which, in turn, receives its authority from the Federal Constitution.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/343/214/

Nearly all hold to a "winner take all" rule of the popular vote in their state. 24 states have laws punishing electors who betray their pledge.

Nebraska and Maine use the district method.
The winner of each district is awarded that district’s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes. No elector in US history has ever overturned a US election.
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm

Recently some states have asserted their right to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington and now Massachusetts, have by their state legislatures enacted this power under each states defined rules.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/08/mass_governor_p.html

No elector in US history has ever overturned an election. Many that deviated in the past from their pledge did so because the election was a forgone conclusion. They used their vote to make some sort of political statement.

In the early years of our nation the founders went about correcting what they saw as the errors in the Constitution. Those corrections were Amendments 1-12. The 12th dealt with electors but said nothing about requiring electors to vote as their state required. In the election of 1796, one elector voted independently, no problem. In 1808 6 electors acted independently, no repercussions, 1812 3 electors act independently. The founders are involved in these elections, no problem. From the get go it was understood that electors could act independently.
Even with these laws on the books of 24 states, now that supposedly punish independent electors. Electors from 5 of those states have in recent elections violated those supposed laws with impunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

CenterBHSFan;445094 wrote:Isa, I'm not understanding you. Reading through this whole thread, what is your ultimate point?
Surely, you're not defending corruption that goes on in DC - then or NOW, or only certain corruptness?

CB
What I write is supposed to make sense? Really? Why are you holding me to a higher standard than all the other contributors at this site.

Ok good question? My original comment was in reaction to posts that seemed to suggest we needed to return to some pristine past age of the founders, when our politics was pure. It wasn't quite so pristine back then. Now the discussion is off in some different directions but that was my original purpose.

One thing that goes along with the discussion, we hear several on this thread talking about an elite controlling our nation. Our nation was founded by an elite who considered themselves better than the common man. They were willing to give him some rights, but his power in the government they formed was to be limited.

majorspark;444622 wrote:Of course not. I am not ok with slavery period. But the fight to end slavery was not possible at the constitutional convention. You know damn well the slave holding states would not sign on. Like I said had that statement not been in their and the slave holding states got to count slaves as a full person, their powers in congress and to elect the president would have increased. Lincoln would have never been elected and slavery would have endured for decades longer than it did.
Its just the reality of the historical political landscape of the time. The 3/5 clause had nothing to do with measuring the humanity of the slaves. It had to do with political power. Like I said the northern states did not want to count them at all. If I was an abolitionist in this circumstance I would not want them counted either until they could vote as free men. Other wise the slave holding states would use their number to increase their power in government to continue to hold them as slaves.
I know it looks ugly but unfortunately it was necessary at the time to get the slave holding states to sign on.

Major Major our discussion of the 3/5s rule was tied into the evaluation of the character of James Wilson. You seemed to find it exemplary. And the 3/5s compromise a political necessity brought on by sectional politics. But 3 years later when writing the Pennsylvania Constitution which he is given credit as author, he allowed nearly 4000 blacks to remain in slavery in the state. No sectional compromise there. He did not seem to give full value to the lives of blacks in that case.

isadore;445095 wrote:In the early years of our nation the founders went about correcting what they saw as the errors in the Constitution. Those corrections were Amendments 1-12. The 12th dealt with electors but said nothing about requiring electors to vote as their state required. In the election of 1796, one elector voted independently, no problem. In 1808 6 electors acted independently, no repercussions, 1812 3 electors act independently. The founders are involved in these elections, no problem. From the get go it was understood that electors could act independently.
Even with these laws on the books of 24 states, now that supposedly punish independent electors. Electors from 5 of those states have in recent elections violated those supposed laws with impunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Simple question. Are electors subject to state or federal authority?

majorspark;445125 wrote:Simple question. Are electors subject to state or federal authority?

for all practical purposes no

isadore;445118 wrote:Major Major our discussion of the 3/5s rule was tied into the evaluation of the character of James Wilson. You seemed to find it exemplary. And the 3/5s compromise a political necessity brought on by sectional politics. But 3 years later when writing the Pennsylvania Constitution which he is given credit as author, he allowed nearly 4000 blacks to remain in slavery in the state. No sectional compromise there. He did not seem to give full value to the lives of blacks in that case.

I read your links and found nothing on Wilson and the PA constitution.

But lets assume that is true. Every signer to the constitution left millions in slavery. Are they all shit bags? Politics played a role in everything concerning the issue of slavery. Compromise had to be made many times.

Take Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation. Number one he did not order it immediately at the onset of war. Number two Lincolns emancipation proclamation only applied to certain states. Those in rebellion. It left left blacks to remain in legal slavery in the union states and confederate territory under union control. I guess Lincolns character is as shitty as Wilson's. He allowed 10's of thousand if not millions of blacks to remain in slavery.

The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

isadore;445132 wrote:for all practical purposes no

You did not answer the question. Whose authority are they under State or Federal?

majorspark;445156 wrote:I read your links and found nothing on Wilson and the PA constitution.
But lets assume that is true. Every signer to the constitution left millions in slavery. Are they all shit bags? Politics played a role in everything concerning the issue of slavery. Compromise had to be made many times.
Take Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation. Number one he did not order it immediately at the onset of war. Number two Lincolns emancipation proclamation only applied to certain states. Those in rebellion. It left left blacks to remain in legal slavery in the union states and confederate territory under union control. I guess Lincolns character is as shitty as Wilson's. He allowed 10's of thousand if not millions of blacks to remain in slavery.
The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

You would have a very good argument if it just ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, that was prepared in 1862, issued in 1863 But it didn’t. In 1864 and 1865 Lincoln was making sure slavery disappeared Lincoln lead the fight for the 13th Amendment. He pushed its approval through the House of Representatives. Helped to gather the votes to win passage. He saw it approved by Congress. He was assassinated by a states rights advocate before it was ratified by the states
Wilson did zip to put a final end to slavery. There were still slaves in Pennsylvania more than 40 years after Wilson died.
McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

majorspark;445159 wrote:You did not answer the question. Whose authority are they under State or Federal?

For all practical purposes no control.
For example in 1896 the Supreme Court issued the Plessey v Ferguson decision that you could have segregation if the separate facilities were equal. Well the feds ordered equal but for all practical purposes there was no equal. For all practical purposes from the start electors have been independent. And from the start the founders accepted it.
And the states have done nothing practical to stop it.

isadore;445088 wrote:In 1791
2nd Amendment, “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.”
The Amendment as part of the needed steps to provide for a relatively inexpensive force under national control to defend our nation in it early poverty stricken days. This is just part of the process.
It began with the body of the Constitution.
1787
Article I, Section 8
Clause 15 “The Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasion. “ We have this force under the control of Congress to carry out our laws and repress citizens with guns who refuse to obey those laws.
Clause 16 “To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia and for governing such part of them as may be employed in Service of the United States….” Congress has the power to regulate these folks to discipline and government them for the use of the United States.
Article II, Section 2
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and the Militia of the several states when called into actual Service of the United States…..:“When this well regulated militia is needed we know who is the boss.
And to further enforce the governments power over this well regulated Militia
5th Amendment
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising among the land or naval forces or n in the Militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger….”\Public danger when nuts with guns are running around.
2nd Amendment just part of the process in setting up that military force.

The bill of rights is a list highlighting some of the peoples rights, not the power federal government as you listed above. What you are saying in your post above is the 2nd amendment is the a right held by the federal government over the people. This line of thinking is laughable.

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.

Do you see that little comma in there? A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of any government. That reality being known, the rights of the people to bear arms outside of the government's army shall not be infringed. In the context of the bill of right it makes total sense.

As I said in my previous post. the founders and the people had a great distrust for the creation of a national army. Who could blame them considering what they just experienced with the British army's occupation.

They recognized the necessity to have a military, regulated and trained by the state, to protect the security of the government. That necessity being known, the people themselves have a right to keep their own private arms, and that right can not be infringed.

I noticed you ignored some of the founders thoughts on this matter. I will post them again. Feel free to rebuke any of them. You can't. Everyone of them dispute your post.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

isadore;445193 wrote:For all practical purposes no control.
For example in 1896 the Supreme Court issued the Plessey v Ferguson decision that you could have segregation if the separate facilities were equal. Well the feds ordered equal but for all practical purposes there was no equal. For all practical purposes from the start electors have been independent. And from the start the founders accepted it.
And the states have done nothing practical to stop it.

Yes the have.

Nebraska and Maine use the district method.
The winner of each district is awarded that district’s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes..
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm

Here are some states have asserted their right to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington and now Massachusetts, have by their state legislatures enacted this power under each states defined rules.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...overnor_p.html

I will answer the question for you since you can't. The federal government has no authority to regulate how an elector may vote. State governments do have the authority to regulate how the electors vote. They alone have the authority. They pass laws and if an elector disobeys that law it is under the state's authority to enforce it. If they choose not to it does not mean they are outside of the states authority. It just means the state chooses not to exercise its authority.

Back on topic. Isadore or anyone else, I am curious to know what your solution would be to the culture of corruption we see enveloping Washington today. So far you have skirted around that answer. It has produced some good discussion so its not a bad thing.

I proposed my solution, that of returning to limited federal power and increased state power. Your a big government, central power guy. Lets here your solution. I am sure it involves increased central government control, but lets hear it.

I will post the CATO article in full. I think it cuts straight the heart of the problem. It does rail heavily on the republicans (rightfully so) but that is because the article was written in 2005 and in the context of republican rule. But the article applies to what both parties have gave us since our founding. A culture of corruption centered in DC.

Remember when President Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over”? You couldn’t tell it by my neighborhood.

I work in a less developed part of downtown Washington, D.C., which is now booming.

Construction cranes dot the sky. To walk two blocks to lunch, I keep having to cross the street to avoid sidewalks blocked by new construction. The big, solid, modern office building next door has been torn down -- to be replaced by a larger and more luxurious building.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.
More by David Boaz

Yes, in the fifth year of Republican control of Washington, Washington is booming.

Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 by promising "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." A look out my window says that isn't happening.

A review of the federal budget confirms it. Federal spending was up 33 percent in President Bush's first four years, making Bush the fastest spender of taxpayer dollars since President Johnson. Between the pork-filled highway bill, the emergency spending bills for the war in Iraq and now the blank-check plans for Hurricane Katrina, he's breaking that record now.

When Katrina spending is factored in, Bush will likely be the fastest-spending president since Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II.

Predictably, as resources are pulled from around the country to the capital, Washington is thriving. In the past four years, the Washington area gained more jobs than any other U.S. metro area. Real-estate prices have risen 89 percent in five years.

Three of the four richest counties in America are Washington suburbs. Only two states had faster income growth last year than D.C.

That's good news for those of us who own homes in Washington and enjoy the finer restaurants that serve a larger and wealthier population. But it's not good news for the rest of the country.

Money spent in Washington is taken from the people who produced it all over America. Washington produces little real value on its own. National defense and courts are essential to our freedom and prosperity, but that's a small part of what the federal government does these days. Most federal activity involves taking money from some people, giving it to others and keeping a big chunk as a transaction fee.

Every business and interest group in society has an office in Washington devoted to getting some of the $2.5 trillion federal budget for itself: senior citizens, farmers, veterans, teachers, social workers, oil companies, labor unions — you name it.

Walk down K Street, the heart of Washington's lobbying industry, and look at the directory in any office building. They're full of lobbyists and associations that are in Washington, for one reason: because, as Willie Sutton said about why he robbed banks, "That's where the money is."

It's not just money that's being sucked into Washington. It's human talent, the most valuable productive asset of all. Too much of the talent at America's most dynamic companies is now diverted from productive activity to either getting corporate welfare from Congress or protecting the company from political predation.

Slow economic growth can be blamed in large measure on just this process — the expansion of the parasite economy into the productive economy. The number of corporations with Washington offices increased 10-fold between 1961 and 1982. The number of people lobbying in Washington doubled in the late 1970s — and it has doubled again just since 2000. The number of lawyers per million Americans stayed the same from 1870 to 1970, then more than doubled in just 20 years. The Federal Register, where new regulations are printed, now prints a record 75,000 pages a year.

As the parasite economy grows, taxing some people and doling out favors to others, everybody gets sucked in. Even if you don't want a government subsidy, you need a lobbyist to protect you from being taxed and regulated by the other groups and their lobbyists.

No wonder so many corporations have opened Washington offices, and so many luxury condominiums are being built in the blocks around my office.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5073

majorspark wrote:the bill of rights is a list highlighting some of the peoples rights, not the power federal government as you listed above. What you are saying in your post above is the 2nd amendment is the a right held by the federal government over the people. This line of thinking is laughable.

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.

Do you see that little comma in there? A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of any government. That reality being known, the rights of the people to bear arms outside of the government's army shall not be infringed. In the context of the bill of right it makes total sense.

As I said in my previous post. the founders and the people had a great distrust for the creation of a national army. Who could blame them considering what they just experienced with the British army's occupation.

They recognized the necessity to have a military, regulated and trained by the state, to protect the security of the government. That necessity being known, the people themselves have a right to keep their own private arms, and that right can not be infringed.

I noticed you ignored some of the founders thoughts on this matter. I will post them again. Feel free to rebuke any of them. You can't. Everyone of them dispute your post.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

In the case of the 2nd Amendment what Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison write has much to do with politics and little to do with what appears in the Constitution.
As you read that the 2nd Amendment, why have a right to bear arms, so we can have a well regulated militia.
And what do we find in Article I, Article II and the 5th Amendment, how that well regulated militia is to be controlled by the federal government. It exists to protect the nation against foreign invasion and internal insurrection.(people with guns) It is under the control of the federal government. That is all in the Constitution, not in letters, not in pamphlets, but in the supreme law of the United States on how a well regulated militia is to operate.
As we read why do we have a 4th amendment, why “for people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects”, why do we allow people to have guns because ‘a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,’ And who ultimately regulates that militia, well according to the United States Constitution our federal government does.

majorspark;445228 wrote:Yes the have.

Nebraska and Maine use the district method.
The winner of each district is awarded that district’s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes..
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm

Here are some states have asserted their right to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington and now Massachusetts, have by their state legislatures enacted this power under each states defined rules.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...overnor_p.html

I will answer the question for you since you can't. The federal government has no authority to regulate how an elector may vote. State governments do have the authority to regulate how the electors vote. They alone have the authority. They pass laws and if an elector disobeys that law it is under the state's authority to enforce it. If they choose not to it does not mean they are outside of the states authority. It just means the state chooses not to exercise its authority.

The Nebraska and Maine changes mean as little as the 24 states that require electors to vote as they were pledged. It means nada. 85 times people have changed their vote. And nothing has been done about it. NOTHING. And why because from the beginning people have known that electors are independent. Did the founders act to prevent this. Did they pass laws, did they change the Constitution, did they punish the independent electors, No. The states pass these laws, do they change the votes of these electors. No. Electors act independently. It has been that way and nothing has changed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

isadore;445252 wrote:The Nebraska and Maine changes mean as little as the 24 states that require electors to vote as they were pledged. It means nada. 85 times people have changed their vote. And nothing has been done about it. NOTHING. And why because from the beginning people have known that electors are independent. Did the founders act to prevent this. Did they pass laws, did they change the Constitution, did they punish the independent electors, No. The states pass these laws, do they change the votes of these electors. No. Electors act independently. It has been that way and nothing has changed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Per your link the states of Michigan and Minnesota have enacted laws that render electors votes invalid if they vote outside their pledge. State authority.

Can the Federal government invalidate an electors vote? I am sure you will gloss over this yes or no question.

majorspark wrote:Back on topic. Isadore or anyone else, I am curious to know what your solution would be to the culture of corruption we see enveloping Washington today. So far you have skirted around that answer. It has produced some good discussion so its not a bad thing.

I proposed my solution, that of returning to limited federal power and increased state power. Your a big government, central power guy. Lets here your solution. I am sure it involves increased central government control, but lets hear it.

Well if you want to know when the best and the brightest were concentrated in government, try the founding of our nation. The best and the brightest were involved in government then, the true elite. They considered that a more important duty than making money, being &#8220roductive.” But there was corruption then and there will always be some as long as humans are involved.
I would reject the idea of decentralization, the state and local governments can easily match the federal for corruption.
Beyond that you want to clean that up. Get corporations, unions, trade associations, out of lobbying, contributing to political campaigns and politicans. Pass legislation that overturns the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to be directly involved in elections, same for unions and trade associations. Only allow personal contributions to politicians. Severely limit lobbying to being strictly informational with no money attached. It might be hard with the first amendment on petitioning the government. But that amendment does “the people,” so maybe there is a constitutional basis for action.
I think that would have a cleansing effect.

majorspark;445253 wrote:Per your link the states of Michigan and Minnesota have enacted laws that render electors votes invalid if they vote outside their pledge. State authority.

Can the Federal government invalidate an electors vote? I am sure you will gloss over this yes or no question.

when they do, we will see. But based on everything previously that has happened we can expect no change in the independent action of electors 24 states pass laws trying to stop independent electors and what effect does it have. NONE.
James Madison had an election effected by indepdent electors and what did he, the Father of the Constitution, do to make sure it never happened again, NADA. Given the previous record, these laws mean nothing until they are tested.

isadore;445104 wrote:CB
What I write is supposed to make sense? Really? Why are you holding me to a higher standard than all the other contributors at this site.

haha!

isadore;445246 wrote:In the case of the 2nd Amendment what Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison write has much to do with politics and little to do with what appears in the Constitution.
As you read that the 2nd Amendment, why have a right to bear arms, so we can have a well regulated militia.

For one the constitution is a political document. Four of the quotes were from the federalist papers, written to encourage ratification of the constitution. Three of which are from one of the most ardent supporters of federal power, Alexander Hamilton. One of those quotes was from James Madison, historically considered the father of the constitution, who authored much of the document. And yes the quote was before, as you say, he lost his mental capacity.

I recall you posting quotes from the federalist papers to support your argument on a constitutional issue. We know now that if you ever present them again, you have acknowledged that they are nothing more than political play writing to get the unwashed people of America to support the constitution. Papers full of political lies with the sole purpose of deceiving the people and their representative into signing onto a document they falsely represented.

isadore;445246 wrote:And what do we find in Article I, Article II and the 5th Amendment, how that well regulated militia is to be controlled by the federal government. It exists to protect the nation against foreign invasion and internal insurrection.(people with guns) It is under the control of the federal government. That is all in the Constitution, not in letters, not in pamphlets, but in the supreme law of the United States on how a well regulated militia is to operate.

Your argument makes no sense. Federal powers are listed in the body of the constitution. The purpose of the bill of rights is to secure the rights of the people and the states to guard against federal powers enumerated in the body of the constitution. You need to read a little history on the arguments on including a bill of rights. It is a list highlighting the things the federal government specifically gets to stay the hell out of.

You are arguing that the 2nd amendment is highlighting an enumerated federal power. This makes no logical sense. Can you back this argument up historically? Are there any historical figures of the time to support this argument? Nevermind they were all playing politics.

The 9th amendment clarifies that the rights of the people listed in the first eight are not to be construed by the federal government as a final list.

9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

isadore;445246 wrote:As we read why do we have a 4th amendment, why “for people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects”, why do we allow people to have guns because ‘a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,’ And who ultimately regulates that militia, well according to the United States Constitution our federal government does.

I have guns. Using your argument the federal government has the right to regulate me and and demand my service to do whatever they define as securing the free state. Strange you use the 4th amendment to justify government intrusion on the people. An amendment in the bill of rights restricting federal government intrusion on the people.

Let me just say this. If people of your beliefs concerning the 2nd amendment ever get power in the federal government and attempt to institute such lunacy or attempt to take the peoples right to keep their own arms, they will instigate civil war.

majorspark;446004 wrote:Let me just say this. If people of your beliefs concerning the 2nd amendment ever get power in the federal government and attempt to institute such lunacy or attempt to take the peoples right to keep their own arms, they will instigate civil war.

Bingo, major. They only need 1 more Supreme to pull it off. Better hope one more doesn't quit prior to November, 2012, or your prognostication could be very close to reality.

I disagree

What do we see in the discussions for ratification of the Constitution.
States submitted their own list of potential amendments for the Constitution The right to bear arms is there to produce a militia. It is spelled out in more detail in the New York and Rhode Island suggested amendments. And seen as to be under the control of civil power to protect against insurrection.
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html

“XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well- regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that, at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrates, in such manner as the law directs.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ri.html

Rhode Island and Maryland specifically defined the right to bear arms in terms of being members of a militia meant to defend the government. They allowed exemption for conscientious objectors.
Rhode Island
“XVIII. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”
Maryland
10. That no person conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, in any case, shall be compelled personally to serve as a soldier.

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_md.htm


James Wilson, one of your big favorites, made the argument for such that militia force at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention.
December 11th 1787 P.M.
“It is said that Congress should not possess the power of calling out the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; nor the President have the command of them when called out for such purposes.
I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting, they interfere with one another. If a soldier drops his musket, and his companion, unfurnished with one, takes it up, it is of no service, because his cartridges do not fit it. By means of this system, a uniformity of arms and discipline will prevail throughout the United States.

I really expected that, for this part of the system at least, the framers of it would have received plaudits instead of censures, as they here discover a strong anxiety to have this body put upon an effective footing, and thereby, in a great measure, to supersede the necessity of raising or keeping up standing armies.
The militia formed under this system, and trained by the several states, will be such a bulwark of internal strength, as to prevent the attacks of foreign enemies. I have been told that, about the year 1744, an attack was intended by France upon Massachusetts Bay, but was given up on reading the militia law of the province.
If a single state could deter an enemy from such attempts, what influence will the proposed arrangement have upon the different powers of Europe?
In every point of view, this regulation is calculated to produce good effects. How powerful and respectable must the body of militia appear under general and uniform regulations! How disjointed, weak, and inefficient are they at present! I appeal to military experience for the truth of my observations. “
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_pa.htm

We see this idea in action in Ohio history. In 1862 Cincinnati was under the threat of attack by states righters. 15,766 Ohio “squirrel hunters” armed civilians answered a summons to defense of the city.
The states righters retreated without a battle.
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=635
You are so ready to start shooting. Hopefully that will not lead to the actions of Richard Poplowski, gun rights advocate, who feared the government confiscation of his guns, a real example of lunacy.
.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/05/pittsburgh-gunman-kills-3-police-officers/

Madison himself thought of the right in terms of who could be used for military service
Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html#Sec5