Chucking the electoral college

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 14 09:48:13 PST 2000


In the 1930s, the Supreme Court shredded the unambiguous language of Contracts Clause (forbidding Congress to impair contracts) to allow debtor relief in Homw Bldg & Loan Assn v. Blaisdell, 290 US 398 (1934). The Court read a nontextual "emergency" exception into the law. So unambiguous text needn't be binding if the will exists to change its meaning.

--jks


>
>
> >>> hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us 11/14/00 12:40PM >>>
>
>Doug H:
> > How? Got a plan to get every state to consent to it? From the sacred
> > text itself:
> > >Article V
> > >The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
> > >necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
> > >application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,
> > >shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either
> > >case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this
> > >Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of
> > >the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as
> > >the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the
> > >Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the
> > >year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect
> > >the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first
> > >article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived
> > >of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
>
>I generally don't mind being lbo potted plant but I've posted variation
>of below about three times to list in response to above...
>
>As with bunch of other stuff about constitution, there's this
>'interpretation' thing. May well be that most constitutional
>scholars (who tend to be conservative about & protective of
>document) consider above provision unamendable. There are some,
>however, who contend there are ways in which it can be changed,
>for example: repeal by amendment, then another amendment adopted
>permitting 'unequal' representation in Senate. Of course, I
>wouldn't hold my breath (nor would I re. abolishing electoral
>college but that's for another time). Michael Hoover
>
>
>((((((((((((
>
>CB: This issue illustrates the ultimate power of the living over the dead.
>There is no way that the dead can keep bound the living , if the latter
>exercise their inherent advantage over the dead of being able to move, i.e.
>change.
>
>Less spectacularly, no present legislature can bind all future
>legislatures. The analogous principle, the original writers of the
>Constitution were not a super ,all time Constitutional Convention who could
>bind all future generations would guide the annihilation of this legal
>fetish.
>
>Mors immortalis
>

_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list