Fix America's Emergency Laws

Let's use California and Texas as examples. If 3 people vote in each state, 2 vote for Clinton and 1 vote for Trump in California and the reverse in Texas. California's EC number is 55 and Texas is 38. Wouldn't that mean that Californian voters carry more weight?

Playing devil's advocate here.

 

Nope they only vote within their state not against voters in other states.

 

WHAT?

Obama did not do this?

https://www.cato.org/publications/c...obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency

DACA
Top 10 Ways Obama Violated the Constitution during His Presidency

By Ilya Shapiro
This article appeared in The Federalist on January 19, 2017.


The Obama administration has been the most lawless in U.S. history. I don’t mean that in the Nixonian sense of personal corruption, whereby the president is personally above the law, although the idea that Barack Obama’s tenure has been ethically pure is laughable.

No, my accusation rests on the 44th president’s seeing himself as professionally above the law, ignoring the executive branch’s legal limits and disrespecting constitutional bounds like federalism and the separation of powers.

But don’t just take it from me. Liberal law professor Garrett Epps (a professional acquaintance) admits that “even for those like me who admire Barack Obama, the constitutional record is disturbingly mixed. Obama leaves the Constitution weaker than at the beginning of his terms.” Epps labels Obama’s posture to be one of “aggressive compliance,” torturing statutory language as far as it can go in order to avoid constitutional claims.

 

Take CA
My vote did not count.

WHAT --
democrats screech? It counted.
NO.

Hillary won CA.

I refused to vote for Hillary.

Democrats votes counted.

 

yes. nobody's vote should count more than anyone elses, regardless of geography. This is why the EC needs removed.

 

nope. their vote carries more weight in the presidential election, than someone from California. About 3 times as much.

 

Drugs have been crossing into the US and it is NOT in any way a matter of "illegals".

Illegals are typically employed for low-level work and we should make their entry legal.

When I came to France to work for an American company I had to wait for 6 weeks for the French government to send me an Entry Permit (that had been requested by my employer).

Why can't we do the same for the "illegals"? You don't have a work-permit the date of which substantiates a date of validity that is expired, SO out-you-go.

But first we make provisions to nationalize all non-nationalized occupants of the country - and particularly those born here.

PS: France has one helluva lotta people that have made it into the country from North Africa and the middle-east. They are not getting work-permits so inevitably they leave and go back.
PPS: Because Europe works on a basis of birth-identification, every adult carries an ID card that simply shows a photo and identifies the name. It's not difficult to establish just such a system (activated at birth and the ID-card delivered at the age of 15) in the US!

 

Trump merely declared the border an emergency and that emergency does involve drugs, even though drugs connection to illegals can be debated. The problem with illegals coming in is that come into direct competition with poor minimum wage workers who have seen their effective earnings drop over the last few decades. Our country has too much unskilled labor, and not enough skilled labor, that is why we have a skills gap. In addition, these illegals are not being background checked, like you want guns to be background checked, and we just need to check everything and everyone why comes into this country to ensure they aren't involved in crime, terrorism, or drugs.

If we opened the gates and made their entry legal, our country would get filled with hundreds of millions of refugees who would bankrupt our social programs instantly and downgrade us to a developing country overnight.

 

And you can't write proper English.

We're even ...

 

There are 51 elections for ELECTORS, separate elections and no ones vote in any of those elections is worth more than anyone else's. You really don't understand how Presidents are elected STILL.

 

nope. their vote carries more weight in the presidential election, than someone from California. About 3 times as much.

 

Used dozens of times to help foreign nations without any objections from Congress or the media; used once by Trump to help America and now they want to undo the law? Yeah, it is just because of Trump and the danger he presents to their power.

 

I use internet english sometime. Don't be so stodgy.

Internet language is an art form, per se.

 

Hundreds of millions.

 

I was being a bit hyperbolic. According to a survey, 150 million would move to the US if they could. Now in the survey done a lot of other developed countries were given as second options, so if the US was the only place with open borders, that number is over 300 million. Now not all of them will be able to make it, but we would get a solid amount of immigrants, I'm predicting 50-100 million over the next two decades with a lot more to come.
https://www.statista.com/chart/10146/150-million-people-would-move-to-the-us-if-they-could/

These people will be low-income and will probably cost our social programs more than they will pay in taxes. How much will we working class Americans have to pay for their welfare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, lower and college education costs and benefits? Lets also include some of the democratic plans like universal healthcare, universal education, and universal childcare.

 

So a law is passed in the 70s suddenly becomes a problem when Trump uses it and it has nothing to do with Trump. Yeah right.....

 

Look, it is patently evident that you do not understand the usage of the law!

If you did, you would not have sent the above.

There IS no international law about border controls (except for "pass through" waiting rooms in airports) ... there are only the known borders and they are policed at the whimsy of existing countries who share them.

Should the US want to really stop illegal immigration, they would require from all countries and all entry-points an Entry Permit (dated) on their passport. And kick those out who are found without one (with permanent exclusion from reentering to the US.)

JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ADVANCED NATION ON EARTH ...

 

There's an argument to say that the Popular Vote will mean that those voting in small states have no power over who is elected. So really, it's the same. The EC is fair for all parties whereas the popular vote will heavily favour the democrats.

 

The above is no reason whatsoever to tolerate either manipulation of the Popular Vote or Gerrymandering.

What is unfortunate is that voting laws are not required to be approved by a vote of the general public (of voting age)! But some countries do have a set of voting laws that can favor the parties in power when the law is passed in parliaments where a given party happens to have a majority.

Much to my dismay, after investigating a bit further, I have found instances of "gerrymandering types" in the history of some European countries. They are less and less as the general education of the voting public improves.

Which means we need badly in the US that pâssing a Civics Course be required in order to obtain a High-School degree. Then we should look towards requiring by national law that the Electoral College report to Congress only the genuine final results of the popular-vote.

As regards state voting laws, it is probably a good idea that the Supreme Court decides that gerrymandering is illegal. But how illegal? Meaning a criteria definition of what "legal" means should be established by the Supremes. (Which they will not all like doing!)

 

Sez you.

In reality, "meaning means everything" in proper discourse. Thus especially in a Debate Forum.

The best way to ruin a language is to use new-words (because it's "hip") when writing. Americans are so brought-up on "whatever is new is interesting, whatever isn't new is not" that we rush from one idea to the next WITHOUT THINKING!

And the purveyor of such manipulation is the BoobTube, whilst we Yanks are the largest (number of hour daily) TV-watchers in the world. (And if you don't believe that accusation, see here.)

Which is how Donald Dork was elected ...

 

Gerrymandering has occurred in the UK since we have had our current electoral system, it used to happen during virtually every election cycle. For what it's worth, I would like to see Proportional Representation as oppose to our current FPTP system as this would provide fairer representation across parties and eradicate gerrymandering, although I am aware that it would make passing laws far more difficult in the commons and has it's own drawbacks.

I am English and not American so I have no say in the American voting system but I would favour the Electoral College over a simple popular vote. My reasons are the same as the Founding Fathers, America is a Federal Republic and each state deserves a true say in who is President. Everyone knows that heavily populated cities lean to the left and this would be a disaster for democracy in my opinion and lead to further alienation and division. I think the removal of the EC would potentially see the end of the Federation.

 

Bollocks§

The above is a totally unverifiable statement. Besides, with the middle-ground growth of "swing-voters" (just a bit less than half of all voters), there is really no meaning any longer of political "party allegiance".

Which is goodness, given the way the two main parties have manipulated the vote in the US for more than two centuries ...

 

Justification of your assertion by research done, please ...

 

Members of each state have a "true say" in the political leadership of their "state". But what is a "state" in Europe is not what is a "state" in the US.

In Europe, I have researched some information claiming that manipulation of the vote has occurred in some European countries. That should diminish given the fact that more laws are becoming trans-EU - meaning it gets a bit harder to manipulate national votes for government leadership positions.

That business, however, is very touchy. Some people still think that politicians may remain in public-office forever if the voters want it. That remains a difficult obstacle to overcome wherever some politicians are so entrenched that they actually have a real effect upon the lives of people. (For instance, where large amounts of people work at just a few companies.)

 

What is the problem its ONLY a couple billion dollars diverted from other programs to his Wall, which is for the security of the southern border. If so many drugs are found at legal points of entry how much is crossing elsewhere not official and secure?