Post by BTR1701. . .
Except it's the Dems that are intent on nuking every branch of
government that they can't control.
Can't win the Senate? Either abolish it or add states until they can
control it.
Adding states requires an act of law, so that's something that can't
just be done unilaterally.
The 23rd Amendment, as far as I can tell, precludes adding Washington DC
as a state. It's a stupid, unnecessary amendment. Washington could have
had voting rights all along except for being disenfranchised under
federal law. Note that the Virginia side was never disenfranchised but
voted as if it were part of Virginia. An amendment wasn't needed to
overturn bad federal law.
I have no idea what your problem is with adding Puerto Rico as a state.
The choice long been theirs: Remain a commonwealth affiliated with the
United States with some autonomy and very special federal law allowing
massive industrial subsidies, become a nation fully independent of the
United States, or an affiliated without its own defense or diplomats like
the former Trust Territories in the Pacific, or become a state.
Becoming a state doesn't win the plebescites they've held because they
just don't want to pay federal taxes like the rest of the country and
that would end other special subsidies they receive.
But if they ever wanted to be treated with equality and fully federated
into the union, why not?
Post by BTR1701Can't control the Supreme Court? Just keep adding justices until they
can.
The last time the number of the Court was tinkered with was by
Republicans. The number of Justices was shrunk by attrition in 1866 from
10 to 7, to prevent Andrew Johnson from nominating any anti-civil-rights
justice. The number of the court fell to just 8, however. After Johnson
was succeeded by Grant, the number of the court was increased to 9.
The Republicans intended to retain control of the Supreme Court to
thwart an incumbent president, a Democrat, whom they treated like the
enemy. Maybe they never should have given the Democrats the idea.
The reason the court's number was increased from the original 6 to 10
wasn't to do with preventing ties but the circuit-riding requirement
and that the nation's population and territory greatly increased. The
Wikipedia article is confusing in that circuit riding ended in 1901 with
the passage of the Circuit Court of Appeals act but wasn't abolished in
law till 1911. It took 10 years to fully establish all circuit courts?
Post by BTR1701Can't win the presidency under the rules the Constitution sets out?
Abolish the Electoral College.
This argument of yours is complete bullshit. The Constitution
established the Electoral College but left it to the states to appoint
or elect Electors.
Win by plurality/winner take all DOES NOT protect minorities. Since when
do you not acknowledge, if not protect, the rights of minorities? Even
in a state in which Democrats regularly win statewide, there is a
sizeable Republican minority. Why shouldn't the minority get 2/5ths of a
state's Electors?
The Founding Fathers didn't envision win-by-plurality/winner-take-all. A
48% win-by-plurality should not entitle that presidential nominee to
every Elector in that state's delegation.
Amazingly, win-by-plurality isn't even tyranny of the majority!
It's some serious fuck to argue that the Electors shouldn't reflect the
voters' choice, given a large enough minority of voters.
Post by BTR1701But it's Trump that's a threat to the rule of law.
We have a lot of bad laws. State laws in choosing Electors are about as
unrepresentative as you can get.
If Trump actually refuses to prepare to leave at the end of his term
(either the end of this term or the second term if re-elected) as
he's said, that's a threat to the rule of law.
