In your opinion and ignoring the roles. There were even more robust arguments against mob election of the Senate.
And now we can see the results.
In your opinion and ignoring the roles. There were even more robust arguments against mob election of the Senate.
And now we can see the results.
people misunderstand marbury. it does not say courts have the sole power to determine constitutionality. it says ALL FEDERAL officers must consider laws anathema to the constitution void.
The SCOTUS misunderstands Marbury
not really. it is just as incumbent on them as anyone to consider unconstitutional laws as voids, and since any disputes and challenges do go to them, their opinion is binding on other courts. This makes disagreement with them on that mostly moot, since anything done opposing their opinion would be decided in court anyway (unless the congress acts)
The dream of the ignorant and the promise of the pompous self absorbed politicians.
Despite this background the Courtās power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
Note the source.
it is true that courts in deciding controversies do review. it is also true that because controversies are brought to them disagreement with their review is a fairly moot point. Marbury however does not limit itself to courts, it is binding on all federal officers.
Concur with the criticism of Marbury v. Madison
The 17th, was a result of how the Constitution was designed to adjust an issue the FF did not think would be an issue.
The EC should be addressed as well. And I see both arguments.
The 17th was instituted properly. It also destroyed the very essence of the Senate, which damaged the whole mechanism.
āAddressingā the EC will result in the same.
Clearly the EC is beginning to break. How many elections will it take where the person with the most votes loses, before people think itās a antiquated system.
We arenāt in 1776 anymore.
the 17th took the voice of the states out of the federal government. it was the beginning of the end of the republic.
Iāve read several of your posts on the election of the President.
You donāt seem to understand that it is 50 state elections.
Agreed me either. The electoral college is the basis of how we elect the president. It should not change. Complex system and all.
You donāt seem to understand that it is 50 state elections.
States donāt matter under a popular vote model. A Trump vote is a Trump vote whether you are in Los Angeles or Birmingham. Both voters are voting for the same Trump with the same policies.
Today, one of those voters have their votes essentially thrown away.
Clearly the EC is beginning to break. How many elections will it take where the person with the most votes loses, before people think itās a antiquated system.
We arenāt in 1776 anymore.
The EC has never been broken nor is it an antiquated system.
What you are promoting is popular vote. Since we are not a democracy election of a president by popular vote isnāt relevant.
We arenāt in 1776 anymore.
Irrelevant.
What you are promoting is popular vote. Since we are not a democracy election of a president by popular vote isnāt relevant.
Reread these sentencesā¦
āPromotingā is the key word. Which actually makes your second sentence irrelevant.
the 17th took the voice of the states out of the federal government. it was the beginning of the end of the republic.
US Senators still represent their states. The voices are still being represented.
Reread these sentencesā¦
āPromotingā is the key word. Which actually makes your second sentence irrelevant.
Nothing that I said about your post is irrelevant.
What you are promoting is popular vote. Since we are not a democracy election of a president by popular vote isnāt relevant.
Every other US office in congress is determined by popular vote. The POTUS should be as well. We can still be a democratic republic with a popular vote for POTUS.
Clearly the EC is beginning to break. How many elections will it take where the person with the most votes loses, before people think itās a antiquated system.
As long as it remains hard to change, it will stay. The EC only becomes an issue when elections are close. It wasnāt an issue in 2004, 2008, or 2012. I think even if the EC was abolished the losing side will find an excuse to de-legitimize any close winner.