-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Was anyone else lied to in their high school Government class?
- Thread starter Hkindiana
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
It's like most things. There's more than just one reason. They argued a lot about how to elect the president. That was one of the arguments, but not exactly worded like "'cause they's stupid". Different people had differing concerns, and the compromise had to address the different concerns.
But, if you have a teacher saying there was only one reason and that it was because they thought people were stupid, that's bull****. You can tell the ideologues, because they only tell the parts that support the way they want it to be. A while back I read an article that tries to make the case that it was all about slavery, and that it was never about protecting smaller states from the whims of the larger states. And therefore, the EC was never meant to be a permanent solution, that the framers thought eventually the president would be elected by popular vote.
Some of that is true. It's not the entire truth. My opinion about the EC is, I don't really like it. There are a lot of problems with it. In states where one party has a perpetual "lock", it tends to disenfranchise the people in the opposite party. Other than local races, why should a Republican even bother to vote? And most of the uber-high populated states are Democrat. So that's a lot of Republicans being disenfranchised by the EC. Also, an externality caused by the EC is the half-dozen states where presidential races are actually competitive get all the attention.
But, it's absolutely nonsense to claim that swing states choose the winner. They're not the only states with votes. Just because the other states are predictable doesn't mean their electoral votes don't count. We know the winner in California, Texas, New York, Illinois without the election even taking place. Because of their electoral votes, they a bigger impact on the election than the swing states. It's just that we don't know how the swing states will vote until after the election.
The redeeming quality of the EC is that it gives the rural states a little veto power over the urban states. I think the EC doesn't do enough though. Once Texas is turned purple, it's unlikely that Republicans will get many presidents elected unless they make their platforms much friendlier to urban sensibilities. So **** flyover country then. And then, the EC will be completely ineffective. The solution would be to give rural states a bigger advantage.
I like what the uber populated, uber-progressive states are doing. Make it so the winner of the popular vote gets all the electoral votes. It's actually brilliant. That gives more conservative candidates the advantage. Presumably the red states will not pass the same law. So if the perpetually democrat-locked states give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, it makes it possible for a Republican to get their EC votes. Right now it's impossible in some states. So if a Republican can win the popular vote, those 55 EC votes would go to the republican candidate. And if the Democrat wins the popular vote, those EC votes would have gone to the Democrat anyway. I hope all the solid blue states adopts this law and none of the red states do. Of course, they're idiots for doing it. It would take just one election of a Republican taking all of California's, NY's, Illinois' EC votes. Their state legislatures would break records for speed in repealing that law.
I remember doing a "silent vote" in 1st grade. No idea how this was appropriate for 1st graders... anyway.
Our teacher had everyone put their heads down, and described the two candidates: George HW Bush and Bill Clinton.
She described Clinton as a guy that would close down our schools and make people sad. She described Bush as a hero, someone that would make people in schools happy.
Such a weird thing to do.
My middle school science teacher showed a video explaining why the moon landing was a hoax. It was influential at the time.
Our teacher had everyone put their heads down, and described the two candidates: George HW Bush and Bill Clinton.
She described Clinton as a guy that would close down our schools and make people sad. She described Bush as a hero, someone that would make people in schools happy.
Such a weird thing to do.
My middle school science teacher showed a video explaining why the moon landing was a hoax. It was influential at the time.
Change your screen name...
I'm NOT to sure of your screen name, but I'm am AAA+ on your post on this topic..Bill.
I'm NOT to sure of your screen name, but I'm am AAA+ on your post on this topic..Bill.
+++100% for "The Mouse"...Bill.
Geez you people are old. I was memorizing multiplication tables...
Senior in college and got married the month after the election. Yeah....old.
Pffft. Hold my beer and watch this. I watched Kennedy's funeral on TV...live...
I would say they didn't lie to us so much as they were not terribly competent on relaying pertinent information. Of course we were all so obsessed with the space race and impending nuclear Armageddon that we couldn't really have given a hoot about the EC. I think it was prescient of the founders to develop it.
90/91, Dukakis was 88.
[FONT="]The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is [/FONT]national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as nationalfeatures.
The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the operation of the government, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the national, not the federalcharacter; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a national government.
But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extentof its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.
If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by states, not by citizens, it departs from the national and advances towards the federal character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the federal and partakes of the national character.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
PUBLIUS.
The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the operation of the government, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the national, not the federalcharacter; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a national government.
But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extentof its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.
If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by states, not by citizens, it departs from the national and advances towards the federal character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the federal and partakes of the national character.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
PUBLIUS.
I was one month shy of turning 4, but I do remember hearing it on the radio when it happened (the shooting, not the funeral). I was less than 20 feet from where I'm sitting at this very moment as a matter of fact.
Well. I voted for Reagan twice. Then I voted for Bush. Not by putting my head down on a desk and raising my hand.
Whippersnapper.
Now watch one of those really old geezers like Alpo, or Churchmouse, show us what old REALLY is.
When Churchmouse voted for GHWB, as told by jamil.
"I had just gotten my cane polished, and went to the pharmacy to get my pills. No, not those pills. They hadn't invented those yet. And...uh...I don't really remember what I did right after that. But then I looked at my watch and it said TUE in the little window thingy. So that means it's Tuesday. And I remembered my wife told me I needed to do something on Tuesday. But I didn't remember what. Oh. Now I remember what I did after I got my pills at the pharmacy. No, not those pills. They hadn't invented those yet. So I noticed a pay phone because I was gonna call my wife and ask her what I was supposed to do when my watch said TUE. They didn't have cell phones back then. Boy I wish I would have had this little baby... [flips open phone]. Woulda got in line at the poll a lot sooner. Anyway, I didn't have change for the pay phone. So I went back into the pharmacy to get change and...wait...what were we talking about? Oh yeah. I was telling you about when I voted for Bush. No. Not his punk ass kid. No, I mean the other brother. Not the *****. The one with balls. But I voted for his dad. I think. Those little tiny levers you flip on those machines always confused me. Hell. I don't know. I may have accidentally voted for some Commie or something."
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- pokersamurai
- Bosshoss
- cobber
- Ozark1897
- syntax357
- Fireman85
- indykid
- Bollorollo
- SnoopLoggyDog
- BIGE7.62
- Frank_N_Stein
- DoggyDaddy
- jwamplerusa
- oldschool1911
- Ark
- joe138
- rbhargan
- mrm
- KeeperoftheH
- Ingomike
- d.kaufman
- Zombie
- INgunowner
- DRob
- bwframe
- Mr24g
- Patched
- BP84
- diver dan
- Wolfhound
- BeDome
- Limpy88
- Rafterman
- deo62
- dsol
- Malware
- Mice54
- Sagamore - One
- Anonymous
- Georgemartinn
- JRR85
- efd1295
- Ford Truck
- dustinfz6r
- straight-shooter
- dougha5
- Lost Californian
- johnb62
- CopperheadL
- Magyars
