The Human Touch Revealing All that is Real
Of Despondent Democrats, the Electoral College and the "Snowflake Generation"
Struggle as one must to comprehend and accept, Donald J. Trump won the 45th presidency fairly as prescribed by the United States Constitution.
Today is December 22, 2016, the second shortest day of the year, one day removed from the Winter solstice, and three things are certain: 1) President-elect Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President on January 20; 2) the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution providing for the conduction of the Electoral College is exceedingly complicated; 3) repealing the 12th Amendment, and the associative components in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution providing for an Executive Branch will never occur. So, Despondent Liberals and Socialists get use to that reality and get on with your lives, such as they are.
Even though your presidential candidate was soundly drubbed in the rancorous 2016 general election, when few (and none in the Unprincipled Democrat Media) considered that Donald J. Trump would pull it all together in the end to win the election, you must accept the unbridled truth: 1) Your guy lost in a fair and free election (remember how L. Hillary said that was the American Democratic way of it); 2) your Democrat party was also trounced egregiously in so many state and local down-ballot elections; 3) America is out of work or underworked, nearly broke and diminished globally to the point of irrelevancy; 4) consequently, and there is no irony here, America is less safe today, after 8 years of Barack Hussein Obama, than it has been in many decades, and safety will always be a priority for any governed people.
Until Liberals /Socialists can come to grips with these four issues, it will continue to be significantly more difficult for them to regain a substantial number of offices to reshape the capitalistic United States of America into their desired Socialist dystopia. If you desire a Socialist America, you will have to make it fair, and keep Americans free and safe, and this is one tall order when your desired political construct is to deny economic freedom to the masses, which is the core of Socialism. When productive Americans are denied economic freedom, they do not feel very free or very safe, and that is the real truth of it
If there is one picture that tells the accurate inevitable fate of L. Hillary Clinton in regards to the Electoral College, this is it: Above. Click image to expand.
In today's Liberals' Socialist idealized American utopia, all works well, all works to their benefit, and when that stops, it will always be someone else's fault; not theirs', not their leaders', but those with opposing governing beliefs that more closely resemble that of our Founders. What we have discovered of late is that when that utopic understanding of Socialist America is not realized, these Liberals /Socialists have surrendered to full conniption fit mode, and it is not a befitting sight to behold. Their hypocrisy is staggering in its relentless abundance.
Enter Millennials, also becoming known as the "Snowflake Generation", where participation trophies were a very real occurrence (as a long time coach in youth sports, I always advised against this silliness) during their formative years, where many went on to tackle higher learning, where, many again, were indoctrinated by poor professors, some of whom have never worked outside of a role, where they did not receive a government check. For these sad "Snowflakes", reality is a cruel mistress.
Musician, lyricist, and salient political commentator, Dana Kamide - fresh and brilliant - lends to this argument of the "Despondent Democrat", and, in particular, of the newly minted "Snowflake Generation", by building his parody upon the melody of Roy Oribison's "Crying": Below.
The chief inanimate antagonist prodding these sad, poor losers is the Electoral College, the sole tool to elect the head of the Executive Branch, the nation's president. It is a confusing process, but it is our American process to elect presidents, the only American process to elect presidents, and for some since the origination of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, it is without merit and should be abolished in favor of whatever might work for their ideological needs, whenever that might be.
To that end, and since L. Hillary lost badly in vast open spaces that is real America, but still won by the popular vote, the Electoral College is now obsolete, and should be abolished. The problem for these Liberals /Socialists is that the Electoral College cannot be abolished unless the 12th Amendment is abolished and replaced by a new amendment declaring an acceptable election method to two thirds of the members of congress, and then three quarters of all state legislatures. Suffice it to say, the Electoral College is here to stay.
Recently, most Liberals /Socialists cannot discuss the Electoral College's abolishment without arguing that most of our Founders were slave owners and that the Constitution would not have been ratified without appealing to the 5 Southern, slave holding colonies - Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland - which comprised the original 13 colonies, which is partially true, but, still, only partially true.
The far larger truth is that most of our Founders were not slave owners; many were ardent abolitionists, but many of those Founders also believed that: 1) men (women would not enjoy suffrage nationally for another 131 years), who were property owners were more likely to be more knowledgeable in matters of self-government; 2) smaller states, in population, deserved a slight more influence in selecting the president, since the more populated states would enjoy more influence in congress - the House of Representatives represents more power to The People as per population. This is by far the truer argument for the Electoral College, which, like it or not, is the law of the land, and the only prescribed method to elect the chief executive of the Executive Branch.
I, like most Americans who actually consider these things, have long realized the importance of the Electoral College as opposed to the popular vote as a method to selecting the President of these United States, but, also, have long taken it for granted without doing any real research. Today, I did two things to heighten my knowledge of the Constitutional legitimacy of the Electoral College, which took about an hour: 1) I read the 12th Amendment, and Article 2 of the Constitution which Article 2 replaced, and they are excessively confusing but still clear if one has a rudimentary understanding of the intent of Constitution's historical semantics; 2) I had a serendipitous seasonal exchange which my friend Diane Rufino, who is well renowned in the pages of BCN as a constitutional scholar, where I posed to her these topics of my day, in that hour.
First, my deductions from my mere 30 minutes that I spent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which you can do as well): 1) There is no provision in the Constitution for a popular vote; 2) The states are responsible for picking its Electors as per the 12th Amendment, and holding an election; 3) Ergo, the popular vote has long been, and is currently provided to lend great guidance to the states as they select their Electors, which is their prescribed constitutional duty to perform; 4) Each state's elective power is determined by their number of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives.
When I gave Diane Rufino the results of my study, within that same hour, she gave me a "thumbs up" to my new, very extra-laymen's understanding of the nation's presidential election process, but then, in a matter of minutes, Diane lent this well understood commentary to my new understanding in her Private Message to me, which I will publish below with Diane's permission.
But first here a bit about Diane Rufino: Diane is a well educated lawyer, who received her J.D from Seton Hall in New Jersey; studied constitutional law under Judge Andrew Napolitano, and reveres her fellow pizano to the point of making "The Judge" her first daughter's "Godfather".
Diane Rufino's PM to Stan Deatherage: Yes, there is only the right of the people to select their legislators (members of Congress, and then, by the 17th amendment, their senators). The president is selected by the Electoral College and there is no constitutional nexus between the Electoral College and the people. When our Founders came up with the Electoral College, it was to: (1) reinforce our government system which is based on federalism and (2) to acknowledge that the great majority of citizens are not informed enough to be able to intelligently select the President of the US and so a group of informed electors would do the right thing on behalf of the people. Electors were believed to be those most politically intelligent and informed. They were to be trusted to vote for president on behalf of the people.
Now, however, when the election system is designed such that popular vote translates to electors, then the government cannot step back and try to alter that arrangement. There is an implicit understanding and expectation on the part of citizens. It is ingrained in our society and in our political body as citizens that people vote on Election Day every 4 years for their president and those votes translate to the Electors. And those Electors are EXPECTED to vote in accordance with the popular vote of that state.
We have come to rely on this understanding. After all, if the people are ultimately subject to the laws, policies, and actions of the President, they should have a popular say in who that president is. I compare the duty of an elector to the duty of a member of a jury. He or she has a solemn duty to the process - a process very essential and critical to our democratic republic. Any attempt to interfere with that process would be akin to jury tampering.
I then remitted a few notes to Diane about whether the Electoral college could be subverted to represent the recently espoused 'Hamiltonian precept' by many Liberals /Socialists, which would call into question the suitability of any candidate picked by the 'other People' winning the election, so, we shall continue with Diane's conclusion below:
Diane Rufino's PM to Stan Deatherage: Also, although the Constitution doesn't provide for popular election of the US President or provide that Electors are to be selected by the popular vote, I would compare our situation to that of Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are a legal fiction. Nothing in the Constitution requires such a warning be given to criminal accused. In 1999, the Supreme Court addressed that issue. A police department finally challenged Miranda as being the result of an improper (liberal) Supreme Court decision and granting rights and special protections to criminal accused not required by the Constitution. The Supreme Court (with Justice Rehnquist, I believe) agreed. But then said that it was not willing to strike down the system because it had become so ingrained in our society (people had come to believe they had those rights and protections, especially thru all the cop shows on TV). I would argue that the election of president by the people, thru Electors, would be a similar situation.
In further regards to our conversation on the Electoral College's performance using the the popular vote as a guide, I referenced a remark by "The Judge", who I also imminently respect, which is 'the Electors do not have so much a legal obligation, but a moral obligation to respect the popular vote of their respective state.' If one remembers a few days earlier before the Electoral College vote, Liberals /Socialists had all of a great sudden become wise "Federalist Paper" authorities, and such were advising electors to ditch their 'moral obligation' to vote for Donald J. Trump.
This political ruse failed miserably, with only 2 electors failing in their 'moral obligation' to vote for Donald J. Trump, but, remarkably, 5 electors failed in their 'moral obligation' to vote for L. Hillary Clinton, and in their betrayal to 'the first woman to be nominated by a major political party for the nation's highest office', will certainly add to the Democrat despondency that continues unabated.
And, when we, as poor bystanders, witness these Liberals, these Socialists inconsolably offer their poorly rendered commentary of how this election was tampered with, rigged, that we must immediately end the Electoral College since L. Hillary lost the Electoral College, but won the popular vote, I beg you to collect your composure, retort as little as is possible to preserve the national peace, and return to BCN, to this post, to this link, and let us all have just one more good laugh ... for sake of our Republic.
Go Back
Today is December 22, 2016, the second shortest day of the year, one day removed from the Winter solstice, and three things are certain: 1) President-elect Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President on January 20; 2) the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution providing for the conduction of the Electoral College is exceedingly complicated; 3) repealing the 12th Amendment, and the associative components in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution providing for an Executive Branch will never occur. So, Despondent Liberals and Socialists get use to that reality and get on with your lives, such as they are.
Even though your presidential candidate was soundly drubbed in the rancorous 2016 general election, when few (and none in the Unprincipled Democrat Media) considered that Donald J. Trump would pull it all together in the end to win the election, you must accept the unbridled truth: 1) Your guy lost in a fair and free election (remember how L. Hillary said that was the American Democratic way of it); 2) your Democrat party was also trounced egregiously in so many state and local down-ballot elections; 3) America is out of work or underworked, nearly broke and diminished globally to the point of irrelevancy; 4) consequently, and there is no irony here, America is less safe today, after 8 years of Barack Hussein Obama, than it has been in many decades, and safety will always be a priority for any governed people.
Until Liberals /Socialists can come to grips with these four issues, it will continue to be significantly more difficult for them to regain a substantial number of offices to reshape the capitalistic United States of America into their desired Socialist dystopia. If you desire a Socialist America, you will have to make it fair, and keep Americans free and safe, and this is one tall order when your desired political construct is to deny economic freedom to the masses, which is the core of Socialism. When productive Americans are denied economic freedom, they do not feel very free or very safe, and that is the real truth of it
In today's Liberals' Socialist idealized American utopia, all works well, all works to their benefit, and when that stops, it will always be someone else's fault; not theirs', not their leaders', but those with opposing governing beliefs that more closely resemble that of our Founders. What we have discovered of late is that when that utopic understanding of Socialist America is not realized, these Liberals /Socialists have surrendered to full conniption fit mode, and it is not a befitting sight to behold. Their hypocrisy is staggering in its relentless abundance.
Enter Millennials, also becoming known as the "Snowflake Generation", where participation trophies were a very real occurrence (as a long time coach in youth sports, I always advised against this silliness) during their formative years, where many went on to tackle higher learning, where, many again, were indoctrinated by poor professors, some of whom have never worked outside of a role, where they did not receive a government check. For these sad "Snowflakes", reality is a cruel mistress.
The chief inanimate antagonist prodding these sad, poor losers is the Electoral College, the sole tool to elect the head of the Executive Branch, the nation's president. It is a confusing process, but it is our American process to elect presidents, the only American process to elect presidents, and for some since the origination of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, it is without merit and should be abolished in favor of whatever might work for their ideological needs, whenever that might be.
To that end, and since L. Hillary lost badly in vast open spaces that is real America, but still won by the popular vote, the Electoral College is now obsolete, and should be abolished. The problem for these Liberals /Socialists is that the Electoral College cannot be abolished unless the 12th Amendment is abolished and replaced by a new amendment declaring an acceptable election method to two thirds of the members of congress, and then three quarters of all state legislatures. Suffice it to say, the Electoral College is here to stay.
Recently, most Liberals /Socialists cannot discuss the Electoral College's abolishment without arguing that most of our Founders were slave owners and that the Constitution would not have been ratified without appealing to the 5 Southern, slave holding colonies - Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland - which comprised the original 13 colonies, which is partially true, but, still, only partially true.
The far larger truth is that most of our Founders were not slave owners; many were ardent abolitionists, but many of those Founders also believed that: 1) men (women would not enjoy suffrage nationally for another 131 years), who were property owners were more likely to be more knowledgeable in matters of self-government; 2) smaller states, in population, deserved a slight more influence in selecting the president, since the more populated states would enjoy more influence in congress - the House of Representatives represents more power to The People as per population. This is by far the truer argument for the Electoral College, which, like it or not, is the law of the land, and the only prescribed method to elect the chief executive of the Executive Branch.
I, like most Americans who actually consider these things, have long realized the importance of the Electoral College as opposed to the popular vote as a method to selecting the President of these United States, but, also, have long taken it for granted without doing any real research. Today, I did two things to heighten my knowledge of the Constitutional legitimacy of the Electoral College, which took about an hour: 1) I read the 12th Amendment, and Article 2 of the Constitution which Article 2 replaced, and they are excessively confusing but still clear if one has a rudimentary understanding of the intent of Constitution's historical semantics; 2) I had a serendipitous seasonal exchange which my friend Diane Rufino, who is well renowned in the pages of BCN as a constitutional scholar, where I posed to her these topics of my day, in that hour.
First, my deductions from my mere 30 minutes that I spent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which you can do as well): 1) There is no provision in the Constitution for a popular vote; 2) The states are responsible for picking its Electors as per the 12th Amendment, and holding an election; 3) Ergo, the popular vote has long been, and is currently provided to lend great guidance to the states as they select their Electors, which is their prescribed constitutional duty to perform; 4) Each state's elective power is determined by their number of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives.
My good friend, and BCN's constitutional scholar, Diane Rufino
But first here a bit about Diane Rufino: Diane is a well educated lawyer, who received her J.D from Seton Hall in New Jersey; studied constitutional law under Judge Andrew Napolitano, and reveres her fellow pizano to the point of making "The Judge" her first daughter's "Godfather".
Diane Rufino's PM to Stan Deatherage: Yes, there is only the right of the people to select their legislators (members of Congress, and then, by the 17th amendment, their senators). The president is selected by the Electoral College and there is no constitutional nexus between the Electoral College and the people. When our Founders came up with the Electoral College, it was to: (1) reinforce our government system which is based on federalism and (2) to acknowledge that the great majority of citizens are not informed enough to be able to intelligently select the President of the US and so a group of informed electors would do the right thing on behalf of the people. Electors were believed to be those most politically intelligent and informed. They were to be trusted to vote for president on behalf of the people.
Now, however, when the election system is designed such that popular vote translates to electors, then the government cannot step back and try to alter that arrangement. There is an implicit understanding and expectation on the part of citizens. It is ingrained in our society and in our political body as citizens that people vote on Election Day every 4 years for their president and those votes translate to the Electors. And those Electors are EXPECTED to vote in accordance with the popular vote of that state.
We have come to rely on this understanding. After all, if the people are ultimately subject to the laws, policies, and actions of the President, they should have a popular say in who that president is. I compare the duty of an elector to the duty of a member of a jury. He or she has a solemn duty to the process - a process very essential and critical to our democratic republic. Any attempt to interfere with that process would be akin to jury tampering.
I then remitted a few notes to Diane about whether the Electoral college could be subverted to represent the recently espoused 'Hamiltonian precept' by many Liberals /Socialists, which would call into question the suitability of any candidate picked by the 'other People' winning the election, so, we shall continue with Diane's conclusion below:
Diane Rufino's PM to Stan Deatherage: Also, although the Constitution doesn't provide for popular election of the US President or provide that Electors are to be selected by the popular vote, I would compare our situation to that of Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are a legal fiction. Nothing in the Constitution requires such a warning be given to criminal accused. In 1999, the Supreme Court addressed that issue. A police department finally challenged Miranda as being the result of an improper (liberal) Supreme Court decision and granting rights and special protections to criminal accused not required by the Constitution. The Supreme Court (with Justice Rehnquist, I believe) agreed. But then said that it was not willing to strike down the system because it had become so ingrained in our society (people had come to believe they had those rights and protections, especially thru all the cop shows on TV). I would argue that the election of president by the people, thru Electors, would be a similar situation.
In further regards to our conversation on the Electoral College's performance using the the popular vote as a guide, I referenced a remark by "The Judge", who I also imminently respect, which is 'the Electors do not have so much a legal obligation, but a moral obligation to respect the popular vote of their respective state.' If one remembers a few days earlier before the Electoral College vote, Liberals /Socialists had all of a great sudden become wise "Federalist Paper" authorities, and such were advising electors to ditch their 'moral obligation' to vote for Donald J. Trump.
This political ruse failed miserably, with only 2 electors failing in their 'moral obligation' to vote for Donald J. Trump, but, remarkably, 5 electors failed in their 'moral obligation' to vote for L. Hillary Clinton, and in their betrayal to 'the first woman to be nominated by a major political party for the nation's highest office', will certainly add to the Democrat despondency that continues unabated.
And, when we, as poor bystanders, witness these Liberals, these Socialists inconsolably offer their poorly rendered commentary of how this election was tampered with, rigged, that we must immediately end the Electoral College since L. Hillary lost the Electoral College, but won the popular vote, I beg you to collect your composure, retort as little as is possible to preserve the national peace, and return to BCN, to this post, to this link, and let us all have just one more good laugh ... for sake of our Republic.
Comments
|
Divine Intervention. A Miracle.
|
|
But it is what it is, and there ain't no changing it without great difficulty.
This last test by the Liberals /Socialists manifests that it worked our pretty well ... except for L. Hillary. |
|
|
The Electoral College can change the state vote. The system is unstable and unpredictable. Like Texas Hold'em Poker.
|
| Governor McCrory Signs Legislation Enhancing State Employee Policies | Clarion Call, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics | Syria: An Example of American Weakness |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
This last election was the perfect test.