Comments on: WILL R’S GIVE D’S A WOODY?

By: thundermutt

thundermutt — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:47:47 +0000

Shorebreak, Congress has never elected the president under the US Constitution. The electoral college has always had that responsibility. Remember 2000?

The individual states still get to choose how their electors are selected. Theoretically, a state could designate its Congressional Representatives and Senators as its electors and not even hold an election for President. But how well would THAT “state right” play?

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:34:34 +0000

MD - can you explain where i went wrong? Thanks.

By: MissouriDemocrat

MissouriDemocrat — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:23:31 +0000

Shorebreak where did you study government? I think you missed some classes or your fingers are not typing what the brain is thinking.

By: Dems make it happen

Dems make it happen — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:54:50 +0000

I’m also hearing Republicans switching to support Carolene Mays.

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:45:05 +0000

CJ - The reason that Congress elected the President was because the President’s job was to run the Federal Government, not the country. That premise, in conjunction with non-delegated authority being divested upon the states, assured continued decentralization which was based upon the initial premise of our Constitutional construct - preservation of individual liberty and protection of the sovereign rights of states under a federal construct, via limitation of powers.
.
A good read of the Federalist Papers is well worth anyones while if they want to understand the difference between the basis of our system and where we are today.
.
Now, as a result of the paradigm shift away from the original premise of limited government, what we have is a top-heavy, centralized executive with branches that reach into our lives on a daily basis, where states no longer have direct representation that is answerable to the directives of sovereign state authority.
.
With regards to voting in primaries, clearly I understand that these are party functions, separate from protected voting rights. My point is that my preference is for citizens to be able to exercise their vote at every crossing, regardless of party. If the door is open, use it.

By: stimy

stimy — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:30:00 +0000

if i don’t get to vote for whom i want when i want them i’m disenfranchised. this is amereica. i can be a democrat today and a republican tomorrow.

By: CJ

CJ — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:44:09 +0000

Shorebreak, we should consider ourselves lucky to be able to vote in an open primary. In the not so very distant past there were not primaries like we know them today. It was strictly a party affair close to those outside the party organization. The system worked from the ground up: Precincts to Wards to Counties to Districts to State to National. All had a hand in the process.
Today, I’d say some party candidates today would prefer to go back to the old setup.
We do not have a constitutional right to vote in the primary. That right is left up to the individual parties. When they no longer want open primaries and go back to the way it used to be then people either get involved in politics with a party or start their own with their own rules.
Our founding fathers never made provisions for political parties and our President was elected by Congress, not the people.

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:08:10 +0000

Shorebreak, her words are not even code any more. She says loud and clear that she is for a socialist form of government. Our county has turned from the majority being earners to the majority wanting entitlements. She and Obama are here to help.

By the way, wouldn’t it be interesting if the Republican crossover voters actually helped the 7th get a qualified democrat candidate? Wow, talk about wierd politics. How can the majority of the 7th voters even begin to see Andre as a viable candidate to represent them? He can hardly represent himself.

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:54:53 +0000

Also, before I forget, I heard a sound byte from Hillary in NC yesterday - she said that Americans want a President who will take care of them and their families.
.
Has she even read our Constitution? What planet is she on?

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:50:53 +0000

I have no problem with cross-over voting. If the goal is to use your vote to choose the correct candidate, you should be able to vote at every step of the game, on all sides of the political spectrum. Party affiliation shoud have no influence upon each citizen participating in choosing the correct President.
.
Where I have a problem is when party primaries allow only card-carrying members to vote. A Representative Republic is not about which party wins - it’s about giving the citizens control over who is elected, regardless of party affiliations.
.
So, while I may be disenchanted by our corporate, media selected choices - on both sides of the aisle, I fully support any and all crossover voting. We have a right to choose our own leaders. Excercise that right to your fullest advantage, especially if you can lawfully eliminate unfavorable opposition in the process. It’s our right. Don’t let arbitrarily drawn party lines get in your way.