Electoral College ???

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by jEEZY
U.S. Const. art. VI, Section 2

I thought you might be talking about the supremacy clause, but you can see how I was confused between Art IV, Clause 2 and Article VI, Section 2.

However, While the supremacy clause establishes that States can not pass laws that are contrary to federal law, there is no reading of this clause that dissolves the rights of the states that are provided in the 10th Amendment. If your contention was on point, the 10th Amendment wouldn't exist.

-Sik

[RTStuka]

Was anyone else just plain dissapointed by Googles graphics on election day, i was really expecting more than just a check box, Booooooo Google.

[jEEZY]

How many federal laws have been overtruned under a 10th Amnd analysis?

How many state laws have fallen to the Supremacy Clause?


Sorry about the roman numeral mixup.

Sik

This case supports your position, however, it has been limited to apply only to soveriegn immunity:

Alden v. Maine
119 S.Ct. 2240
Jun 23, 1999

[ra]

The electoral college was agreed to by the large states when the Constitution was ratified.  There is no reason to get rid of it.  It prevents a few huge states from dominating the election.   The Dems are just looking for ANY WAY to increase their poll numbers.

[J_A_B]

We have the EC system for exactly the same reason we have the Senate.   Is the Senate also a pointless archaic notion?


If so, then you must also consider states themselves pointless, since both the Senate and the EC exist as a means of maintaining states' equality.  If we get rid of the "outdated" EC system, why not go all the way and get rid of the states?  Just have federal and local government.  That's consistent at least.



Personally I like the EC system, I like states rights, and I wish the Federal government was more limited than it is.  

J_A_B

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by jEEZY
How many federal laws have been overtruned under a 10th Amnd analysis?

How many state laws have fallen to the Supremacy Clause?


Sorry about the roman numeral mixup?

Prior to the New Deal, the 10th Amendment held sway, post new Deal the Supremacy Clause (with the help of the commerce clause) has over run most issues of State Soverignty, as a matter of law (although with Rinquist and Thomas in the court, things are at a wierd point now).

But this all supports the need for the Electoral College, as a tool of perserving the State Soverignty shown in the 10th Amendment. While the Powers of the Federal Government were expanded under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court hypothesised that the Sovereignty of the States fell into the makeup of the Government, more than the ability to pass laws.

I'm sorry I don't have a specific case cite here, like I said, I'll find it tomorrow.


With all that said, I should admit that I don't have a dog in this fight. I've always been a Federalist, and don't really care for States Rights. But I do think that you go to far in saying that they have no Sovereignty, by virtue of the Supremacy clause.

-Sik

[jEEZY]

I edited with a case cite here it is again:

Alden v. Maine
119 S.Ct. 2240
U.S.Me.,1999.
Jun 23, 1999

Supports your position--but has been limited to soverign immunity.
[I am just yanking chains]

BTW, people have rights, governments have powers.  Nowhere in the Const. are states given rights.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by jEEZY
.
[I am just yanking chains]

BTW, people have rights, governments have powers.  Nowhere in the Const. are states given rights.

I'm just trying to remember enough to pass my Con-law final lol.

With regard to "states rights" Notice that when "officially" talking about it, I refer to "State Soveignty", and when casually refering to it, I use "State's Rights"  I think that's acceptable


Although, as mentioned, I've been drinking so I'm sure I've ****ed it up somewhere lol.

[edit]

Originally posted by Sikboy
However, While the supremacy clause establishes that States can not pass laws that are contrary to federal law, there is no reading of this clause that dissolves the rights of the states that are provided in the 10th Amendment.

**** lol.

-Sik

[jEEZY]

Did you go to law school? If yes where?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by ra
The electoral college was agreed to by the large states when the Constitution was ratified.  There is no reason to get rid of it.  It prevents a few huge states from dominating the election.   The Dems are just looking for ANY WAY to increase their poll numbers.

This is backed up by the fact that they dominate the major population centers.  If you look at the county map from the last election you see ALOT of red surrounding little blue areas.

The farmers and Rural people arent represented without the electoral college.


BUT

I must say this.  I desagree with the way it is applied now because it favors a major 2 party system wich I happen to diagree with.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by jEEZY
Did you go to law school? If yes where?

I'm a 2L at George Washington

-Sik

[jEEZY]

I just graduated from GW.

I had Lupo and Baron for Con law.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by jEEZY
I just graduated from GW.

No ****? Small World

You back in WY now, or still out here?

-Sik

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by jEEZY
I just graduated from GW.

I had Lupo and Baron for Con law.

I have Colby, I think he's new.

-Sik

[jEEZY]

I am a clerk to a federal district judge out here.  only for a year.