Again, 50 little countries, would not have been able to produce the world’s leader, without federalism.
Maybe we should remove that unconstitutional cap, and have the correct amount of House Reps to their population as prescribed in the Constitution.
1 Like
and yet they did… amazing.
i support expanding the house. would solve some other issues as well. so long as when we do it we also give each state a 3rd senator appointed by the legislatures and require super majorities for the passage of any bill.
There is another little problem with the whole “will of the people” thing on SCOTUS judges used first by republicans and now dems - the will of the people has nothing to do with SCOTUS justices.
Trump has an obligation to nominate now, just like Obama did.
What the Senate does on receiving the nomination is up to the Senate majority.
The republicans were stupid to trot that line out in '16.
The confirmation of a SCOTUS justice is a matter of great import.
1 Like
If they get that, they get Statehood for Puerto Rico, make every illegal a citizen, they stack the court and get single party rule forever.
Single party rule = tyranny. 100 percent of the time.
1 Like
They knew the rules of the game…but they chose to ignore those rules and play the game they wanted. And then now demanding that we change the rules of the game.
Typical libs.
Which will require a bribe.
It won’t be, but I don’t expect people here to understand how political parties work.
This is rich, as the Republicans work to amass as much power as possible.
2 Likes
Republicans have gotten very good at minority rule. Which is the only minority they seem to care about.
Yeah…said individuals that needs to keep certain minorities down to keep power.
1 Like
I think I disagree on this one since our Founders understood what they were doing when they designed the most unique governing system in the entire world and it’s the reason the USA is the greatest country on the globe. The Constitution foundation is the way we have been able to right some wrongs in our history and it’s a way to move forward and this is why the Democrat Party and leftist liberals want to subvert it so much because it stands in their way to absolute power. JMO
1 Like
Why don’t you explain it since you are the only one who does.
1 Like
They didn’t understand how delicate it was.
Then perhaps you should discuss it with your “intellectual equals”. 
I’m not here to discuss things with my “intellectual equals”
The president makes decisions in the best interests of the nation, not individuals. One person one vote would give urban sectors of the economy, who have no understanding of rural American issues, an overwhelming degree of power to command the entire economy through a president elected by them. A person dependent only on the urban vote can develop policies that favour city-dwellers and ignores the health of rural America, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The EC system requires presidential candidates to develop a policy gamut that both city and rural dwellers trust. Unity of the fifty states requires this holistic vision by a president.
One man one vote for the presidency cannot produce unity. The closer the US moves toward a simple democracy, the more it will become like the UN, rather than the US. And the more divided between city and provincial populations. China loves that prospect
1 Like
How? Trumps national policies would cover every state. If Kansas doesn’t like his policies now, why would they like them under a popular vote model?
“Elected by them” again… how? Are they electing a different Trump in CA vs in Alabama?
No it doesn’t. Battleground states are always more important than non battleground states. EC doesn’t change that.
1 Like
Kansas, the state? Or Kansas, the city? Kansas state likes his policies now.
