The coup Repubs don't want to talk about.

Actually, it is. For the last 3 1/2 years an unpopular prez, not elected by a majority, aided by a Senate majority leader, whose senatorial majority does not represent a majority of citizens, has nominated three SC justices whose views do not reflect the majority's. All while that prez has promoted positions on immigration, abortion, climate change, the ACA, and gun control...........all opposed by the majority.
Additionally, that same Senate majority leader blocked legislation proposed by a prez twice elected by large majorities and favored by a majority of citizens.

 

I'm not sure the Founders were considered that much with peoples personal status as they were with protecting their own. Otherwise ALL would have meant ALL. Let us say that the EC wasn't ever in the Constitution and we were all being ruled by majority rule. Would blacks be whole men? Would slavery and indentured servitude still be part of the make up of our country? Would woman have a right to vote? Would equal housing laws be invoked? Would segregation still be enforced or separate but equal laws be the norm? A hand full of states could ban together and make Spanish the national language. I don't know about you Lee but I'm tired of World Wars, regional wars, undeclared wars, and cultural wars. If we can't get this right on minority rights then we really don't deserve the government we claim to have.

 

It should also be mentioned that McConnell, during the current congressional session, has also refused to bring to the floor of the Senate votes on legislation passed by the House reflecting the will of the majority.

 

Sorry, I didn't follow how the bulk of the text got you to your conclusion. On the whole we need to recognize the founders put the EC in place over a number of concerns, some real, some philosophical, that are fundamentally anachronistic. They also did not foresee the winner take all system that has subverted their intent.

 

So when they put in the Constitution that the States can decide how the electors are chosen you don't think that possible outcome crossed their minds? I mean by 1824 most states had it that way

 

I always love that argument about what the majority want? These are all different topics but you can claim it is what the majority want. I'll take the minority opinion.

1. Immigration - The President has authority to set immigration policy. Sovereign Nations have a right to set their borders. The minority of us do not want illegal immigration. We have no objection to legal immigration. Closed borders help control what comes into our country from illicit trade to drugs and smuggling of sex traffic and children.

2. Abortion- The minority believe in woman's rights and a right to her body but not the right to infringe on the termination of another's life. (The argument is mainly when does life begin) Many of us, like myself, believe that abortion is a form of genocide of minorities by the government.

3. Climate Change- The minority believe in clean water, clean air, and a healthy atmosphere. Many believe that man does contribute to Climate Change to a limited extent. If one was to look at the Grand Canyon , one would see, many periods of drought and water plenty fulness. We also do not believe that we should punish our citizens and shut down our economy while other nations do nothing.

4. ACA. - 184 million Americans and their families receive their health care from their employer and many substitute their Medicare with supplemental Health insurance. They like the plans they are on. The ACA, even though it is ok for some, is not financially feasible unless the whole nation is on it. Why would anyone want to downgrade their insurance coverage?

5. Gun Control - In another tread I wrote about waking up and on the front page of my newspaper it said " A Haven for Violence in Virginia Beach"? It's not just the big cities that violence has become rampant. If nothing is done then it won't be long before it pours over into the neighborhoods. We the minority would like to defends ourselves in accordance with the 2nd Amendment.

 

Your right Lee but the Constitution gives him that right. Who gave McConnell that right? WE the People. You do remember Harry Reed? We the people didn't like it but we excepted it.

 

Let me be more clear. A majority supports a path to citizenship for qualified applicants, a majority favors leaving Roe in place, a majority supports our inclusion in the Paris accords and the consequent development of sustainable green jobs, a majority favors leaving the ACA in place and working to further reform healthcare within its framework, a majority favors enhanced gun control on measures like background checks.

 

You are posting with a guy that thinks the GOP is involved in a Coup for following the US Constitution

 

There were only 13 States and Slave - non slave and small states like Rhode Island were of a concern to get the votes they needed. They also were English . Have to go now Lee but it's been fun.

 

Wrong. While the Constitution may give him that right we the people did not give him that power, the minority did. 15 red states with a population equivalent to CA are represented by 30 senators while the 40M residents of CA are represented by 2. That is what gave McConnell the power to do what he has done. If the citizens of the nation were fairly represented in the Senate Schumer would be the leader, not McTreason.

 

Majority rule permits the howling wolves to devour the lamb. The American Constitution keeps the lambs off the wolves' menu. The wolves are understandably a bit anti-American.

 

The Founders rejected every form of tyranny including democracy.
The Bill of Rights was added to the COTUS specifically to check the power of the majority to dominate the minority.

"Tyranny of the majority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the form of democracy, see Ochlocracy. For the Flesh Field album, see Tyranny of the Majority (album). For the concept in engineering, see Tyranny of numbers.
Part of the Politics series
Democracy

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.[1]

The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:

• Centralization excess: when the centralized power of a federation make a decision that should be local, breaking with the commitment to the subsidiarity principle.[2]Typical solutions, in this condition, are concurrent majority and supermajority rules.
• Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence".[3] The use of public consultation, technical consulting bodies, and other similar mechanisms help to improve rationality of decisions before voting on them. Judicial review (e.g. declaration of nullity of the decision) is the typical way after the vote.

In both cases, in a context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem.[4] A separation of powers (for example a legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.[4]" Wiki

 

You really should read what they wrote.

They wanted a limited democracy, which is high school level stuff, didn't need to be said.

 

Now that you have that bit of fatuous word salad off your chest would you care to try to make a thoughtful remark on the subject at hand?

 

Yikes! You've twisted yourself in a knot so badly democracy is now tyranny? It's back to US history 101 for you.

 

First let me say that I'm not buying the hype about ACB being a religious nut job.

Second let me say that it's not a coup, it is a symptom of fundamental flaws in the US Constitution.

Our system allowed less than 100,000 votes in three counties across three states to override the national vote for the Presidency.

Here is a link to some data that are essential to this OP:

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/state/totals/nst-est2019-01.xlsx

Here's a link to an app to open the Excel file if anyone doesn't have Microsoft office.

https://www.libreoffice.org

Here is a screenshot of the 2019 estimated US population sorted in descending order split into two sections with per state and cumulative percentages.

Talk about a lot to unpack here, to coin an overly used corporate phrase....

 

The supreme court rules on the constitutional of a law not the will of the people, "that's called being an activist judge"

The only people that appear have a problem with the supreme court leaning right appears to be the ones that want every ruling their way, after all the supreme Court gave us Abortion, gay marriage , dreamers for some examples.

 

You're making progress and starting to understand the constitution, yes every state gets two senators to represent states rights. That's why we have a Senate

 

Harry Reid did like wise, elections have consequences.

 

A government that limits the power of the majority to dominate the minority is not a democracy.

The Founders of the American state were very hostile to democracy for very good reasons.

"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death" James Madison

 

Is this supposed to be a "fatuous word salad": “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Benjamin Franklin

Is this better: "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." Alexander Hamilton

 

Your teachers seem to have let you down.

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived." John Quincy Adams

Our education system should have been defunded and replaced decades ago.

 

Now this is a discussion I didn't expect.

Yes, they were hostile to democracy, but not as hostile as they were to kings.

We are a republic that comes as close to democracy as we dare. One of the guiding principles of the Enlightenment is rationality. From which the Founding Fathers developed our system of checks and balances.

So we have elections, which reflect the will of the people, but they are constrained in a number of ways.

The classic way of describing this is that we are a republic that aspires to democracy.

 

You mean you don't believe the reporting on her extremist views?

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/amy-coney-barrett-religious/