The Right Side of the News

If was only half farce, the half where the Republicans spoke and refused to address any evidence while declaring a constitutionally defined process as unconstitutional.There was also farce among Republicans in the Senate. Here's Mitch McConnell:

quote:

---

"I'm not impartial about this at all...I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political process...We will have a largely partisan outcome."

---

Here's Lindsey Graham:

quote:

---

"I am trying to give a pretty clear signal that I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror...I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations and the process, so I don't need any witnesses. I think this whole thing is a crock...The thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly."

---

They both said this knowing that they will be taking an oath as required by the Constitution. It goes like this:

quote:

---

I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

---

--Percy

You might try REALLY REALLY hard to see how the Republicans are the ones in the right and the Democrats the violators of law and Constitution. Make a REALLY REALLY big effort and maybe you can overcome your unfortunate misunderstanding..

What facts and items of substance lead you to say this?--Percy

Enjoy

Name them. Be specific.

Some days ago I wrote a post about the "intent" of the Framers of the Constitution concerning the Electoral College. I realized I was mistaken and decided to read more about it. I pulled out my copy of America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar. Prof. Amar goes over the Constitution article by article and clause by clause and puts each one in the context of the debates around them and their relationship with the rest of the Constitution. I decided to reread what Amar says about the Electoral College.He disagrees with the conventional narratives that we all (in the US) grew up with, so you're all welcome to doubt his conclusions; as for me, Amar's conclusions are more consistent with what I've read about the debates in the Constitution Convention than the conventional narratives.Summary:Amar disputes the common conceptions concerning the Electoral College:

• The Electoral College was designed to protect the small states against the large States, and
• the Electoral College was an anti-democratic measure intended to maintain power among the elite.

Instead, Amar proposes the following reasons the Framers went with an Electoral College:

• The very small number of politicians of national stature that would be well-known and respected by the voters in all the individual states,
• The absence of a national administration to handle a national election and the barriers that would make it difficult to set one up, and
• Concerns by the southern states that, due to their smaller populations overall, they, as a regional bloc, would be at a disadvantage under a popular vote.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo in the subtitle.

I don't see a difference between point 1 he disputes and point 3 he endorses.

I see an important difference. In the point he rejects it is an intentional policy. In the point he accepts it is merely a compromise to get agreement from the Southern States.If it is merely a compromise, reversing it would not be against the intent of the Framers.

The first point was to protect the smaller states as an intentional policy while in the second it was a compromise agreement to protect the smaller states?And they were writing a constitution for the new nation. Everything in it is intentional policy even the political compromises.So there is no difference.What have I missed?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The first point was to protect the smaller states as an intentional policy while in the second it was a compromise agreement to protect the smaller states?

---

To appease the fears of a bloc of smaller states.

quote:

---

And they were writing a constitution for the new nation. Everything in it is intentional policy even the political compromises.

---

There is a distinction between principle and compromise.

quote:

---

What have I missed?

---

Apparently both the points above.

Which they did by intentionally adopting a compromise policy. Principle? No one mentioned principle. Besides, you can make political compromises without violating principle. So this is a distinction without a difference.Whether they went into this with the deliberate intention of protecting the smaller states from the bigger ones or arrived at this as a compromise because of the smaller states concerns at being overshadowed by the bigger ones the end point is that one of the reasons the college was set up (and the Senate as well) was to protect the smaller states from being overshadowed by the bigger ones.That is exactly what is being voiced in both points. There is no difference, not in principle or policy or motivation or effect.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

In the first case, you'd see small states like Connecticut and Georgia opposed to large states like Pennsylvania and Virginia.And you did see this at the beginning of the Convention, which almost fell apart over the arguments whether each state should have equal representation in Congress or whether representation should be in proportion to population. If I recall correctly, the delegates were so committed to their positions that they weren't initially inclined to accept Madison's compromise of a bicameral Congress.Once this compromise was agreed upon, you saw small states aligning with large states in the same region; Connecticut with Pennsylvania, for example, and Virginia with Georgia.Large southern states like Virginia and North Carolina were as concerned as Georgia that as a bloc, the southern states would be at a disadvantage compared to the north if elections were determined by vote. The compromise was to give the states' number of electors equal to their Congressional representation. Since 3/5 Compromise inflated the representation of the southern slave owning states in the House of Representatives, the southern states' influence in the Electoral College (including Virginia) would be similarly inflated.By the end of the Convention, by the way, the delegates had become aware that the major political division in the US wasn't going to be large state vs small state, but northern bloc vs southern bloc.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Which they did by intentionally adopting a compromise policy.

---

Exactly - it was not desired in itself, it was an acceptable concession to get agreement. Thus reversing it would be more in line with the ideals of the Franers than keeping it.

quote:

---

Principle? No one mentioned principle.

---

Now you are playing word games.

quote:

---

Besides, you can make political compromises without violating principle. So this is a distinction without a difference.

---

I didn’t say anything about violating principle I said that the decision was not made out of principle.

quote:

---

Whether they went into this with the deliberate intention of protecting the smaller states from the bigger ones or arrived at this as a compromise because of the smaller states concerns at being overshadowed by the bigger ones the end point is that one of the reasons the college was set up (and the Senate as well) was to protect the smaller states from being overshadowed by the bigger ones.

---

Which simply ignores my point.

quote:

---

That is exactly what is being voiced in both points. There is no difference, not in principle or policy or motivation or effect.

---

That is untrue as I have shown.

This is all very true.What Amar was doing, however, was splitting a hair by substituting smaller population states for smaller population bloc. The set-up of the Electoral College to help protect smaller population states from the tyranny of the majority shifted from state focus to regional focus. Again, a distinction without a difference.It was intended to give smaller voices more standing in shaping the politics of the day. The college serves that same function today, though many of us don’t appreciate the outcomes being achieved. Seems we all love majority rule as long as we're in the majority.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I think there is a major difference between protecting small states vs protecting under-populated regions. I'll grant, though, that may be due to my particular interests in history; I feel too often Americans fall into a crude "states' rights" narrative when discussing the Constitution or the Founders, and I often feel obliged to point out the real life complexities of the issues in the early Republic.At any rate... It's not even that. The invocation of the 3/5 Compromise to boost slave owning states' influence shows this was intended to placate one region in particular: the slave owing South.Once the structure of Congress was finally agreed to, what would prove to be the real division expressed itself: a "free North" that felt slavery was a violation of republican principles against a slave owning aristocracy whose culture depended on slavery and who were very paranoid at the thought of living among free black people.If someone is going to argue that the Electoral College is necessary to protect small states from large states or to protect under-populated regions from more populated regions, that argument needs to be developed on its own merits, not based on appeals to the intent of the Framers.The Framers had several intents in setting up the Electoral College; protecting small states from large states was not one of them. One intent that was important was assuring slave owners that owning human being as property would not be in immediate danger so that they would remain in the Union.