Fix America's Emergency Laws

From the NYT:
Opinion: Fix America’s National Emergencies Law. And Not Just Because of Trump.
- excerpt:

One year and eight months more years of this jerk ... !?!

 

I promise never to understand why the congress did not step on the neck of the Jerk Obama yet wants to step on Trump's neck.

We saw the courts step on Obama's neck and Democrats hated it when it took place.

 

I have yet to see a test made to the Supreme Court if the congress can wish away the presidents authority by using one non elected president to agree to forfeit his duties.

Ford needs to see this done by the congress, challenged. (Ford the law, not his personage)

Can one president whisk all of his duties away merely at the request of one congress? And whisk off the rights of all future presidents?

I want to see this tested by the Supreme court.

 

Because the "Jerk Obama" respected the rights of Congress? Anyone trained in law understands the basic respect for "rights".

And Donald Dork has never ever respected the rights of anybody else. He is a notorious narcissistic person, and was declared as such by Psychology Today, and others. See here:
1)"The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" - excerpt:

2)"Trump's mental health and why people are discussing it" - excerpt, a good question:

3)"The President Is Mentally Unwell — and Everyone Around Him Knows It" - excerpt:

4) Donald Trump: the making of a narcissist - excerpt:

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

Moreover, the fact that he lost the popular-vote and still became PotUS simply indicates how unfit we are as a Real Democracy - unable to realize and correct a greatly mistaken error early in the nation's foundation. That of a blatantly unfair Electoral College ...

 

AN ANACHRONISM

It should be tested. The basic tenet of the founding fathers when considering the establishment of democratic power was to AVOID at all cost that power be concentrated in one person - who behaved like a King.

That was the key reason that they prefered a governance of three powers - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. That was the founding concern of our forebears who created the foundation of this nation. (As governance goes, the more the merrier. So to speak.)

But, something went wrong along the way. And that happened in the south, which wanted to keep slaves - a notion not appreciated by the northern states.

So, the Founding Fathers finagled the issue by allowing states to create an Electoral College that would count and transmit the vote to Congress. It was a necessity at the beginning of the 19th century when the country was new and population was expanding by leaps and bounds. (Besides, there were no trains, roads or telegraph to report the outcomes of state votes to Congress - so a physical Electoral College was created but with some very strange rules. For instance, whoever won the popular-vote in the state won ALL THE EC VOTES for the presidency.

Which is a naked attempt to undermine the popular-vote and when combined with Gerrymandering can swing votes in favor of one or the other side of a two-party voting system.

Along the way, however, the usage of the EC - because left entirely in the hands of the state - started go awry. Particularly in the south, which was steadfastly against freeing the slaves.

The Electoral College nonetheless survived the Civil War, which slavery did not. Now, in the 21st century this anachronism - along with Gerrymandering - is still employed to manipulate the popular-vote.

The popular-vote is the foundation stone of any Real Democracy. It elects presidents by means of an anachronism as well as state legislators by means of another anachronism dating from the same period of time. (The Electoral College was established in 1804 and gerrymandering was first employed in Massachusetts in 1812.

Both are patently manipulations of the popular-vote and should therefor have been done away with in the 19th century.

But they weren't, and are still haunting us today ...

 

The Electoral College gives smaller states a larger voice in comparison to bigger states. We see even in our modern day how many popular vote republics, whether with Catalonia in Spain, Northern Italy, or other regional separatist movements across the world how pure democracy often leads smaller regions to feel isolated, powerless and eventually oppressed. It wouldn’t be hard to imagine how states throughout the American Midwest may feel increasingly even more outweighed and ignored by California and New York were we to move more towards a direct election system.

The Electoral College were abolished or nullified, what would be the argument for keeping the Senate similarly the way it is structured?

 

I'll bet you wouldn't say that in poker-game if you were playing with someone much younger than you!

And by what logic do you think that smaller states NEED a larger voice. They have as many Senators as anyone else, which was the method that the founding fathers conceived in order to address just the problem that you maintain above.

No bill gets passed in the Senate because smaller states can't vote against it ...

 

They need it because they are sovereign entities of equal status with every other state in our federal agreement thus should have equal sway in the national government.

 

Congress has been relinquishing power to the executive branch for a long time but it really hit a high note under Obama.

They really only have themselves to blame here.

They should have stopped Obama in his tracks because he is directly responsible for what Trump is doing to Congress.

Actually the biggest turning point was when Bush violated the War Powers Act and some in congress threw a hissy fit and Bush simply said he doesn't recognize the War Powers Act as being constitutional and congress simply tucked their tails and said, "ok".

Obama followed suit and now Trump is doing it.

 

Bollocks.

The HofR was "owned" by the replicants as of the the 2010 midterm elections and by that time Obama was already bringing down the very high unemployment in the US (due to passage of the ARRA-bill spending of more than $830B). But from 2010 on, all the Replicants could think of is sinking Obama in the 2014 elections.

As the vagaries of life would have it that fate would not work out the way they wanted.

Nonetheless, the Replicants kept the pressure up NOT TO EXPAND SPENDING IN WHAT WAS A MAJOR ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE - as seen here in the BLS graphic of Employment-to-population Ratio:


From 2010 to 2014 (of Obama's term of office) NO JOBS WERE ADDED in the US. Got it? NO NET-JOBS WERE CREATED THAT REDUCED UNEMPLOYMENT!

FOUR LONG YEARS OF NO EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BECAUSE OF NO ECONOMIC STIMULUS TO PROVOKE JOB-CREATION!

One must be blind not to understand the factual evidence ...

More blah, blah, blah demonstrating ignorance the of political/economic facts on record:
*The Replicants wilfully wanted high unemployment to get rid of Obama, and it didn't work!
*But, who paid the price of that abject willfulness?

Jack-'n-Jill America ... !

PS: Also note from the above infographic that jobs finally were created by solely Consumer Demand in the final two years of Obama's term-of-office. The Replicants did absolutely nothing to deserve credit for the turnaround!

 

Wonderful but totally irrelevant to my comment.

But thanks for blabbering on about nothing anyone cares about.

I will send you a cookie!

 

You do not even understand you're in a Debate Forum. Your contribution of empty one-liners is Replicant BS.

M r a ....

 

Unlike this informed debate response you gave right?

Or are you exempted from that rule?

 

Some people (typically Replicants) must have the last word.

You've had yours. Feel better now ... ?

 

But they don't get equal sway. A vote from a Wyoming resident carries 3.6 times more weight than a vote from a California resident. Smaller states votes should not be GREATER than populated states. Either abolish EC completely, or revamp it to make EC votes more proportional on a per voter basis.

 

It's dead simple. Just pass a law that stipulates:
*The EC reports to Congress ONLY THE RESULTS OF THE STATE POPULAR-VOTE, and
*The popular-vote consists of individuals who can prove their residency in less than two-months before the vote and the minimum age of 16-years, or
*We adopt a National Identity Card (with birthdate just like a passport) and the individual must register to vote in the state at any city/state office whereupon they receive a Voting Certificate upon proving their identity. (Which they present in order to obtain a ballot at any polling station, or enter as identification to access an online voting ballot.)
*All voting takes place over two days on any given weekend, and voting stations are open for at least ten hours per day.

 

Not Residents, States, the agreement was between the states in order to form this Union. Each state offered up only a portion of its sovereignty in order for there to be a workable federal government. Why would a smaller state want to give up more of its influence without gaining anything from him it? This is not an agreement between the populations of each state it is an agreement between the state governments. This is NOT a democracy on the federal level. Now the states are Democracy's and each citizens vote is equal within their respective states.

 

So you are perfectly fine with UNEQUAL representation? You are fine with smaller states votes carrying more weight?

 

That was the original agreement and it created the most successful and powerful country on the planet. So yes I am.

 

But it has resulted in 2 presidents serving as president EXPRESSLY against the will of the people in this century alone. One of which, is the most unqualified and incompetent person to have ever held the office.

Having a president serve against the will of the American people is as un-American as you can get.

 

Lincoln only got 40% of the vote and it is a good thing we did not have to do a runoff between the two highest nominees.

The system worked perfectly even if my guy did not win the election. The smaller states want their citizens to have a as equal a voice as the citizens of a larger state. It keeps them relevant in elections. Otherwise candidates would just ignore 60% of the states.

 

did anyone get a higher percentage than him?

but as I already showed you, smaller states citizens have MORE of a voice than populated states.

it's 2019. No state or citizen is "ignored". We don't have candidates on horse and buggy traveling to different areas to campaign, like we did when the EC was first introduced. It was needed in those days. It is outdated and obsolete now, and has resulted in 2 presidents serving office against the will of the people, in this century alone.

 

The states choose the President not the Citizens at large. They have their own elections in each state as the state dictates based on their own rules and own Constitutions. This is a federation of Sovereign states. That Sovereignty is a strength at times and a weakness at times. I dont have an issue with that.

 

So you are fine with some citizens votes having more weight than others. I find that extremely un-American.

 

It has been American since there was America