Huntsman Nails It Concerning the Current GOP

[John Galt]

[J.K. Gregg]

[John Galt]

yes. i'd also like to note that it is not "scrapping the constitution" in any way to do that. it's not against anything in the constitution to have the electoral college act as trustees. further, it seems a bit silly, unless indy you are going to claim that things like the FCC are "scrapping the constitution" because of delegation of powers (you vote for congressmen who then voted to create the FCC that then holds power the congress has abdicated (as well as other powers congress should not be able to confer and it is arguably unconstitutional (unlike gregg's suggestion) but i digress)). yeah you vote for someone who then votes for someone. so what. what is wrong with this? you vote for people that then vote for things all the time. what is the difference that makes it so you think it's "scrapping the constitution"? i'd like to know WHAT in the constitution you actually think it's scrapping. it would be interesting to hear what you think is in the constitution versus what actually is in the constitution

[Indy]

I find it interesting that this form of gov't has allowed us to become the superpower of the world and because it's rife with corruption right now your first instinct is to... ditch the form of gov't.

I'd get rid of the corruption. I'd start there.

You do also realize, don't you, that if the idea is that we get rid of all the dumb folk so they can't vote this isn't going to bode well for the GOP since in the last decade they've become the party of anti-intellectualism, anti-math and anti-science?

But to your point: you're telling us that the gov't we have was not set up by the U.S. Constitution?

[J.K. Gregg]

Indy, the question was: how is making the electors more like trustees constitute "ditching this form of government"?

[Indy]

[J.K. Gregg]

I'd be happy to get more into that, but could you answer Galt's and my question? How does the changes I've suggested constitute ditching this form of government?

[Indy]

You want to alter the form of gov't we've had for two centuries now, as prescribed by the Constitution. Just what am I missing here?

[John Galt]

it's not altering the government, nor is it illegal under the constitution, so much so it is legal that it has been done that way in the past (electoral college electors as trustees). the constitution actually specifically reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating electors to the will of the state legislatures

now it doesn't have anything in there about electoral college sitting and asking questions of candidates but i don't see why that would be unconstitutional. seems more of something that a law can be written about. in fact clause 4 of article 2 specifically says congress can choose the day which the electors are chosen (note the word CHOSEN) and the day which the electors cast their votes.

what gregg is asking for changes nothing in the constitution. outside of repeatedly saying "you're ditching the constitution!!!!!"... what exactly has gregg explained that you believe to be against what is in the constitution. specifics indy. what clause is it violating, indy

[John Galt]