Taylor reports: "There was no political explosion then comparable to the one Republicans are threatening now."
George H.W. Bush. (photo: unknown)
Reagan, Bush-I Also Acted Alone to Shield Immigrants
19 November 14
resident Barack Obama's anticipated order that would shield millions of immigrants now living illegally in the U.S. from deportation is not without precedent.
Two of the last three Republican presidents � Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush � did the same thing in extending amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.
There was no political explosion then comparable to the one Republicans are threatening now.
A tea party-influenced GOP is poised to erupt if and when Obama follows through on his promise. He wants to extend protection from deportation to millions of immigrant parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and expand his 2-year-old program that shields immigrants brought illegally to this country as children.
"The audacity of this president to think he can completely destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to me," said GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, an outspoken opponent of relaxing U.S. immigration law. "It is unconstitutional, it is cynical, and it violates the will of the American people."
Such strong feelings are common among congressional Republicans. GOP leaders warn that an executive order from Obama would "poison the well" and severely damage Republicans' willingness to work with the president during his final two years in office.
Some Republicans have even raised the possibility of impeachment.
Nearly three decades ago, there was barely a peep when Reagan and Bush used their authority to extend amnesty to the spouses and minor children of immigrants covered by the 1986 law.
In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.
Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. In 1987, Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.
Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.
In a parallel to today, the Senate acted in 1989 to broaden legal status to families but the House never took up the bill. Through the INS, Bush advanced a new "family fairness" policy that put in place the Senate measure. Congress passed the policy into law by the end of the year as part of broader immigration legislation.
"It's a striking parallel," said Mark Noferi of the pro-immigration American Immigration Council. "Bush Sr. went big at the time. He protected about 40 percent of the unauthorized population. Back then that was up to 1.5 million. Today that would be about 5 million."
But a lawyer who worked on the 1986 law and the 1990 follow-up as an aide to then-Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., said Bush's action wasn't controversial because it came after lawmakers had made it clear they were going to tackle the issue.
That's not the case now.
"Bush Sr. took the action that he did but it wasn't as if Congress was legislating anything to the contrary," said Carl Hampe of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy. "What's different now is that there is no clear path to legislative relief for the class of beneficiaries for which the president's order would provide relief."
Obama's announcement could come as early as this coming week and cover as many as 5 million people. Like Bush, Obama is expected to extend deportation protections to families of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
"It's clear that it's fully within his legal authority to issue these orders," said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas. He said Republicans 'didn't raise any objections in the past when Republican presidents issued similar orders. This is pure political theater."
Obama's anticipated action would not award legal status, but it would offer temporary protection from deportation and the possibility of obtaining a work permit.
"There's always some precedent for prosecutorial discretion," said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. "But this president would call tearing the Constitution into tiny little pieces in the White House prosecutorial discretion."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is stopping short of threatening to use Congress' power of the purse to thwart any executive action by Obama. Boehner's priority is to avoid a government shutdown. But he made it clear that Republicans will make Obama pay a price if he carries out his threat.
"Every administration needs this and needs that, needs all kinds of things," Boehner said Thursday. "You know, if he wants to go off on his own, there are things that he's just not going to get."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Sounds more and more like Iraq all over again. Worked last time.....
Do you agree with her that we should have a No-Fly Zone in Syria? Do you agree with U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power that the liberation of Aleppo from head-chopping jihadists is a tragedy, and that we should continue to arm them?
I think you owe some answers to the many regular readers of this site who are critical of the overwhelming amount of crap appearing here, in defense of the CIA/neocon/Hill ary-backing war hawks who seem committed to a war with Russia. I think you should also apologize to the Sanders' supporters for giving Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton gang at the DNC cover, by blaming the Russians, instead of looking at the unfair and dishonest rigging carried out against Bernie.
This is a personal attack on me. That is no more acceptable than a personal attack on any other poster. Is the dark side the side that disagrees with you?
For the record, Berine was my guy. Bernie was clear from the start, "If I don't win the Democratic nomination I will back the candidate that does." When Clinton got the nomination Bernie backed her and I followed his lead. We worked hard editorially to force DWS to resign. We like Ellison to replace her.
I haven't blamed the Russians for anything. But now that you ask, yes probably they did hack Podesta's server, yes Putin would have known and most likely that's where Assange got the emails. That "my opinion."
No that does not justify a new cold war with Russia. Far from it.
Unfortunately, we have been given no evidence that the Russians were involved in the email leaks. Furthermore, since those who know most about the leaks deny any Russian involvement, the "official" claims (along with your opinion) of Russian involvement lack credibility.
Equally unfortunate is your assumption about today's electors who, in truth, are no more than low level political pols who will do whatever the party tells them to do, knowing full well their own political aspirations are doomed if they jump ship.
The problem for us voters is that two extremely powerful political parties completely control the political processes in our country and 99.9% of the corruption in our elections can be laid directly at their feet. You would do better investigating and reporting on the political corruption of the parties than wasting our time on unsubstantiated sudofacts that no one in his right mind should give a damn about.
And to me, one reason for RSN's continuing interest is, in fact, the diversity of socio - political topics that Ash pulls into meaningful relationships with each other to stimulate fresh thinking and new insights in RSN's readership.
Some material about the corrupt side of politics is necessary for realism, of course, but it is far from being the most important thing about the impact of political thought and action in the world.
So, my request to Marc Ash would be: please keep doing what you're already doing to inform, stimulate, and involve your readers directly in the debates of the times.
I thought it the point of RSN to publish something other than "party line."
Journalism really once was about getting to the truth. That is the real info.
This is particularly true with JA because he is far from home and his full battery of equipment and expert help.
Let's face it, the Clinton emails were devastating, but if we still are debating whether they were a hack from the outside or a leak from the inside, it seems clear that the source wanted very much to keep his or her identity from being known to anyone.
Why do you choose to believe anonymous CIA sources citing a secret report over Julian Assange and Craig Murray, both of whom have stated unequivocally that WikiLeaks' source was NOT the Russians? Why do you choose to believe the NY Times and Washington Post who are stenographers for the establishment over named sources who have discredited those accounts? Why have you chosen to fill RSN with SOLELY "Russia did it" articles, most of them highlighted as the lead article, and NOT ONE SINGLE SKEPTICAL ARTICLE? Can you please explain that?
You defend yourself by saying you supported Bernie. So what? Everything you and RSN has done since Bernie dropped out suggests that you support the establishment. Just because Bernie chose to do something less than progressive, does that mean you had to? Why did you black out positive articles on the one progressive remaining in the race, Jill Stein? Why did you only publish negative articles about her?
RSN has through article selection and original authorship questioned the veracity of U.S. Intelligence agencies on many occasions.
In this instance the consensus among - all 3 - major Intelligence agencies that a foreign power interfered in the U.S. presidential election is on it's face, extraordinary, historic and absolutely news worthy.
As for Wikileaks, just because Assange says Russia was not the source does not mean Russia was not involved. intermediaries could easily have been involved. I agreed with Ed Snowden that assange had political objectives.
Haven't we been there done that with US intelligence agencies in the past? Iraq war is but one event that comes to mind. As RSN has known enough to question the veracity of US intelligence claims in the past, why would you be so quick this time to accept their word, especially based on anonymous statements with no corresponding evidence? Makes no sense to me and I've been a subscriber for a long time now.
I admit Murray's statements are intriguing, however he is an isolated speaker and again, there is no verification. In addition he is vague on key points, was this the Podesta emails? The DNC emails? A package in the woods? Wikileaks maintains an encrypted upload capacity. Why not just use that?
All of which does not diminish - in any way - the historic significance of the statements by the combined U.S. federal law enforcement agencies. That's actually a rather big deal.
The Electoral College votes tomorrow. They need to consider carefully what federal law enforcement is saying.
quote "harleysch, This is a personal attack on me"
Correct, Marc, as your opinion is the SOLE opinion presented. Given the height of hysteria surrounding this unproven "russia did it" allegation, I should think a responsible progressive site would honor its readers with even a teensy bit of the other side from respected PROGRESSIVES.
RSN is your site, of course,to run as you wish, but what don't you get about "reader supported"? How many silent readers feel as harleysch does?
How about re-opening HUAC to investigate?
When did the left start believing the perps behind the WOMD false claims that rationalized the stupid war in Iraq? The CIA has lied to the American people time and again, but Assange has never conveyed a proven lie. He says the "hacks" were leaks from insiders.
The RSN, Marc, should express skepticism even if Trump is a proto-fascist.
When it suited the purpose of the Hillary or die folks. Remember she voted for the Iraq war.
This has been going on for years!
While the Russian hysteria is clearly nonsense the fact that there is now a discussion and perception regarding the reality that our elections are being manipulated is a very good development.
Now let's see if any improvements are made.
Well, not funny ha-ha.
ELECTION THEATER!
(These are not the droids you are looking for!)
Then there is the aborted recounts which could have counted the over and under votes that the ancient and inaccurate scanners couldn't handle. Palast had an article about that in Truthout today. It explains clearly how this problem could have affected the result.
Where is all the outrage about these clearly undemocratic activities? Where is the call clean our own house?
Palast has done some really good work which isn't being picked up by the MSM. That is what has to happen if we are going to get real election reform. The Russians are a red herring distracting from the actual problem.
Those who for years have decried any SC nominee who supported "original intent" suddenly have a Saul of Tarsus moment.
The "penumbras and emanations" so eloquently referenced by Justice Douglas haven't been reversed to my knowledge.
Hamilton and the FF's spoke for themselves and represented their concept of the EC AT THAT TIME.
History, social change and constitutional interpretation have been anything but static.
Hence we have as a result of time and interpretation, left to the states to administer their own instructions to the electors.
These 538 folks are not some Star Chamber, expert enough to negate the election results that 90 million or so folks have made.
The constitution in it's living, breathing way has moved on from the wishes of Hamilton and your proposal is the promotion of hysteria on steroids. As well as duplicitous.
Agree, and that is why the EC should send the election to the House. The House has access to the investigative reports, can make an informed decision, and if they still want Trump they can select him. If they see problems, they can select another GOP candidate as president (since House is under GOP control.)
This would be the best approach under the Constitution when, as now, there is a serious cloud on the presidency.
And EC discretion is not really open to question, nor is it a question of intent -- it's all in the plain meaning, right there in the express wording of Twelfth Amendment. There is no way to read the Twelfth Amendment and come away thinking the electors lack discretion in voting. Indeed, there have been 157 faithless electors to date.
I say let the House members earn their pay for once -- they have access to all the intelligence, and are as informed as any in govt to make this decision -- so let the House members sit in the political hot seat, the avoidance of which they so ordinarily cherish.
Name the court opinion that supports this contention.
What we do know is that time and interpretation have left it to the states to legislate how electors are to be handled and the right of states to do so has been upheld.
Most importantly, if your suggestion is followed we will find that any close future election will be politicized by the losers into the House. Bad precedent, bad judgement and bad for our nation. Cooler heads will prevail.
Be careful what you wish for.
The states ability to bind electors is the easiest way to get rid of the undemocratic effect of the EC. All these people arguing for the absolute discretion of the electors forget that without the EC Hillary would have won. It makes more sense to work to abolish it or at least its distorting effects on elections that to go the other way and make the system even less democratic. Hillary is not worth the cost in the long run.
And blaming a foreign power and setting up a cold war that will drain resources away from human needs in favor of the military and intelligence community for decades when an election doesn't go your way is a very bad precedent also.
If plain meaning is questioned by "Scalia" justices, original intent arrives at same conclusion.
That is why the view that EC discretion is not open to question is the superior one.
If, as a consequence of following the Constitution (and if we really are a Constitutional democracy we must do so) the EC becomes an unwanted appendage, due to gaming of it's provisions in subsequent elections (a speculative allegation,) then we can again amend the Constitution, as has been done 26 times.
Because we don't like something in the Constitution does not mean we should ignore it; instead we should amend it.
Amendment is the better remedy than extra-Constitut ional denial.
Indeed, as you suggest, applying distorted or torturous interpretations of one provision makes it so much easier to apply the same mischief to other provisions, turning the Constitution into a Rube Goldberg instrument that is a burden on democracy, rather than a facilitator thereof.
And finally, the argument I make is consistent with the GOP position, so they are "getting the jurisprudence they want" and thus how can they then be heard to complain.
In this respect, some here have argued for "blowing up the system," starting over, and thereby advancing progressive causes.
Those views are misplaced, highly risky, unworkable, and so on. But following the Constitutional rules in this election could finally dump the EC.
A better option is for the court to declare both the general and primary elections invalid because of the political corruption of all the elections and start all over allowing only three months to complete both.
Having the House make the selection under this cloud is very "democratic." The House members answer to the people every two years.
And for those who don't like EC process, by following the Twelfth amendment we might see meaningful action to substitute pop vote for EC.
Taking the long view this could be our best chance to get rid of EC. That's the best way to combat the Russian hackers -- turn events to the good of the progressive constituency.
if the electoral college validates this theft of the presidency (and the country) then they're responsible for ushering in fascism. You know electoral college "the blame always falls on the last guy in line"...and that would be YOU
On too many threads lately you can tell who the reasonable people are by the red votes.
Cutting the Electoral College loose from the voters' will is sure to be the complete and total collapse of any hint of democracy. To do so on the strength of unsubstantiated rumors promulgated by unknown people is the height of stupidity. The not-unforeseen consequence will be a steady stream of presidents chosen by a bribed electoral college on the basis of a month of fear mongering allegations conjured out of thin air.
There is no excuse for such an irresponsible call to an action so fatal to our rapidly collapsing democracy.
stars for objectivity and truthfulness.
I am still astounded that so many follow them down the merry path, sacrificing duty, honor, beliefs, careers, country.
We tell children that they need to consider the consequences of their actions .. but adults also need to remember that lesson.
You are consistently wise, mashiguo, though not always appreciated.
To do so would lead to the kind of tyranny you argue against -- to be un-anchored by lack of a cognizable Constitution would place us on the slippery slope to a tyranny, democratically ungovernable without limiting, reliable rules as a check on state action.
And invocation of the "shadow government" as being behind the effort to stop Donald trump is ridiculous. If anything, any such entity, if it existed, would probably be solidly behind him.
We are a federal system or republic if you choose, with a mix of elected positions, appointed positions and a separation of powers.
Federal system or republic is a "form" of government.
Democracy as a process -- it's often rightly said that the essence of democracy is public debate. It's achievable in any number of different forms of government.
You asked:
"What the hell does this have to do with ericlipps misunderstandin g of how this "form of republic" works?"
Ans:
ericlipps did not misunderstand anything.
It was dbrize who was confused about form vs process -- unless, that is, words no longer have meaning (certainly an argument can be made for that in Trump-World."
Was there election fraud? Certainly, in BOTH the General & the primaries--but nobody can shout "fraud" about the General, because then the VOTERS would shout "fraud" about the primaries--whic h Dems AND Reubs perfectly well know occurred, & which NEITHER wants investigated, because both knew how much more likely Sanders was to defeat Trump than HRC was, which neither wanted/wants.
Whoever leaked HRC campaign e-mails, they obviously did NOT influence the election, since HRC won more indivudual votes--but that doesn't matter, because Trump won the electoral votes.
Had HRC won the electoral votes & Trump the popular vote, all those who're now so anxious to blame the Russians and/or to persuade electors to overturn Trump's electoral vote majority would be screaming bloody murder at the mere suggestion that Trump should take the WH because he won the popular vote.
Again, if we don't like the electoral system, we need to change it BY ENACTING LAWS OR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, not by either trying to blame the failings of our pathetic & utterly corrupt system on the Russians, or setting the very dangerous precedent if endowing electors with power/authority they DO NOT legally possess.
The founding fathers could have simply included a rote formula for translating pop to electoral vote, and dispensed with the entire EC.
But instead they included the EC, and no doubt they had a functional purpose in mind.
Do agree if we don't like it then we should revise the Twelfth Amendment, not ignore it.
Democracy is essentially a process relying on public debate.
Governments may take different form -- representationa l, federal, republic, but irrespective of that can include democratic process.
Obviously, modern nations are too large to operate as pure democracies; some form of representation is required.
But it's still important linguistically to separate form and process.
he said himself that he used to sleep with a copy of Mein Kampf under his pillow.....
Trump might turn out to be a dictator on Putin's dog leash but we need proof to accept that and anything otherwise is a coup against a duly elected president to be is a coup.
If you don't believe me, ask ericlipps, who has a "background" in psychology.
I can see Jaax and others here merrily turning family members in to the HUAC goons, can't you?
Take their parking space and suddenly you're facing a committee. Orwell would surely recognize these clowns, who spout love of country at the same time they're fighting to tear it down, calling the people who fight to preserve the democracy traitors .. Karl Rove's disciples.
I could pretty much say the same characterizatio ns about the 3 of you. As to delusions of paranoia snark dbrize, I wonder why people with your point of view do not call those here who claim Hillary wants or would start a war if elected with Russia are not called paranoid?
dbrize your complaint sounds just like you
describing yourself. Why would I want to talk to ericlipps. I agree with him sometimes?
pro54 let me suggest something to you. "we need proof to accept that..." I think there is evidence out there already to draw some conclusions as to what Putin's Russia has been doing, but you do not want accept it. Not everything in this world is going to be laid out to you by strict 100% proof. Do your think trump the dog or Putin will confess to any wrong doing in this election jiggering matter? Circumstantial evidence is enough
in this country to put someone i jail or on death row. Tell me what you would do if you were at your home with your wife and children and you saw a stranger (not police) not in a suit and tie who looked angry or aggressive with a gun in hand. Wouldn't you conclude you should be careful and plan to deal with or combat any aggression he poses to you and your family instead of opening the door and asking him to prove he was not going to murder or harm you and your family or rob you?
As for "Hillary and war with Russia". You have not read me carefully. I have as a matter of fact, clearly stated on several occasions that I do NOT believe she would intentionally have started a war with Russia, but that the policies she has supported, designed and implemented would make war with Russia more likely.
If you can produce something I've said on RSN that proves otherwise, go for it.
BTW, when you accuse those with whom you have disagreements of being "goons" and "traitors" you really should be thankful that we treat you like an adult. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt.
not necessarily...
consider stravinsky's comment when Walt Disney stole his music to make the film Fantasia:
"I'll say nothing about the visual complement as I do not wish to criticise an unresisting imbecility."
Maybe the message you should get is that there is no point to engage. Churchill's "battle of wits with an unarmed opponent" comes to mind as a possible rationale.
But have it your way if you like. Just don't expect any sane person to follow you or anyone else down the CIA's rabbit hole of paranoia.
Having said that, there are state laws that dictate how their electoral college delegates are to vote. How the members of the college are instructed by their states is entirely up to the states, not the Constitution.
Therefore, to the degree the electors are free to vote as they might wish, or change their vote, is entirely up to the states. To the degree that STATE laws bind the electors to the popular voting results, the popular vote matters. Otherwise, it has little but advisory influence.
It ain't over 'til the Fat Lady sings. She sings on Monday.
It may not be democratic -- but it's certainly Constitutional.
The best outcome under this circumstance would be for the EC to not choose a majority nominee, and thus "delegate" presidential selection to the House, as the Twelfth Amendment provides.
The House members are representatives of the people, and presidential selection by the House would restore any democracy lost by EC refusal to select a majority candidate, as some critics here allege.
And since the House is majority GOP, presidential selection in the House would lead to a GOP president -- that is certainly "democratic" in that it would be consistent with the popular vote as to party, if not the actual person selected for President.
And most importantly, unlike the EC, the House has access to the investigative reports from the intelligence agencies, with all available facts at its disposal, so again in this circumstance the House is the best institution of govt for carrying out this duty.
Your last statement sounds good, but the so-called intelligence agencies have refused to talk to Congress.
The Chair of Senate Intelligence Comm is already planning an investigation; nothing in his statement suggests he questions veracity (it's only you and a few others who don't believe the Russians might meddle in US election.)
Last I read the Chairs of both Houses had been briefed -- and so far the process between the two branches is following regular order.
(Ha-ha...Just recall all the investigative hours Cong expended on Benghazi -- that should be adequate to convince anyone that Cong has resources to investigate to death anything they so choose.)
Indeed if EC punts, the Cong has until Jan 20 to investigate and consider -- if they still want Trump they can elect him as per the Twelfth Amendment.
Bottom line -- It's spelled-out Constitutional process, not rocket science.
I realize this may lead to Pence, but so be it -- in any case it's a toss up who is worse, Pence or Trump.
If people don't like the House's choice for president it may spur action to substitute popular vote for the EC. Only time would tell, but ignoring Constitutional process puts on the slippery slope to who knows where, but certainly not a very good place.
Except that since it seems the election was apparently 'rigged' in favor of Trump/the Rethugs and the congress is primordially Rethug itself, it will be hard to take seriously that what they INTERPRET from the investigative reports will not be likely to be suspect.
Yes, I agree with you, to a point.
But with House selecting President per the Twelfth Amendment at least there would be someone the voters could hold accountable.
The EC does not have access to investigative info, cannot make an informed choice but Congress does and can.
Congress (House for President; Senate for VP) would be the body best positioned to make an informed decision, as envisioned by the Twelfth Amendment, and then would stand accountable to voters.
That is a "democratic" outcome, testable in the minds of the voters during the resulting presidential administration.
The EC, in addition to not having access to investigative info, is not accountable to voters or anyone else for that matter.
I don't know what your legal training or background is but I have personally discussed this issue with several lawyer friends of mine and none of them would make the assertion you here present. Anecdotal I admit but they are bar approved attorneys that have studied constitutional law, are you and have you?
Then, as follow up, ask them if the meaning is plain, or if you prefer simply ask them WWSS (what would Scalia say.)
[Moreover, among these unnamed atty friends, since "none would make the assertion" what they really are saying is "I don't know."]
Anyone can read the Constitution and opine on it's intent and meaning. Indeed with the ascendancy of the Scalia plain meaning school it's much easier than under the intent-based, legislative history approach to construing either statutes or Constitutional provisions.
Moreover, since we have a GOP govt, a strong advocate of the Scalia school of legal interpretation, I see some poetic justice in giving them the jurisprudence they so cherish and seek to cultivate. What's to dislike about that?
It's ok, neither do I and we are welcome to opine as much as you want, but kindly refrain from declarative statements based upon nothing more than your opinion.
Since you make the assumption that my attorney friends "don't know" (which is only partially true since it hasn't been adjudicated) doesn't mean they don't have an opinion based on persuasive precedent and their training. Let's agree with your premise for discussions sake: If they with legal training "don't know" why should we assume that you with none, do?
Carrying on, since you are into Scalia and originalism, do you believe the framers were of a single unified intent?
I have supported my opinion on the scope of the Twelfth Amendment by reference to the strict construction approach, strongly advocated by Scalia, other conservative jurists, and the GOP.
And my opinion provides enough info, and a concrete foundation, as to be susceptible to critique. So why not address that rather than invoking extraneous matters.
Here is a clue -- if you reject my "textual" approach to construing the Twelfth Amendment you are left only with one other avenue of disagreement -- that would be to argue a so-called "activist" interpretation of the Amendment (sometimes pejoratively called outcome-determi native), although must confess I don't know how you would arrive at the desired point. This is one of those questions of construction where originalists and activists would most likely agree -- the reason being the plain meaning is so crystal clear -- and also why there are few if any judicial decisions involving the Twelfth Amendment -- you have to have a cognizable controversy to have a case.
As stated elsewhere there is poetic justice in giving the GOP the same jurisprudence they strongly advocate.
No doubt the last thing the GOP House members want is to have to choose the president -- as is said, House members "have one eye on the clock and the other on the constituency."
Let them sit in the hot seat -- if they still want Trump they can select him.
As for original intent, we didn't have time to delve too deeply into it as this was over coffee at my attorneys office, but all agreed that though they respected Scalia's intelligence, he himself had ignored original intent in some of his rulings.
Now, you still haven't answered my questions and your opinion concerning single unified intent, is not extraneous. It goes to the heart of your "strict constructionist " argument. Do you believe in it or not?
More importantly, party discipline, which is much more strict than picayune state laws, dictates that the electors better damn well vote as the party says or any political aspirations they might entertain are doomed.
Finally, no one in his right mind wants to turn the election over to the crooks in the House. And it would be a waste of time if they did because the outcome is already known.
In the meantime the Dems in congress should give Trump the Clinton and block everything.
Actually, the Putin-RT hacksquad in St. Petersburg supplied Wiki the scandals concerning the DNC and Clinton emails, Debby Wasserman Schulz and Donna Brazile, and the dirty tricks they used to block Bernie. And the Huma Abedin Weiner stories. All of these showed how reckless and incompetent the HRC people were.
Irregardless, the real purpose of the Russian propaganda machine is to undermine the US and Europe, any way they can. And they're winning that war...
The very nature of computer trails and evidence is that it too can be faked and hacked into whatever. I'm sure CIA/NSA/FBI will insist that all the clandestine methods be kept under wraps
The Clinton campaign had time to refute or explain their (unconscionable ) behavior. No one disputes the authenticity of the emails, and no one has asked them to explain. Instead we get in a huff about Russia and let Schumer and Pelosi keep the power they've squandered and abused.
You are playing the outcome-determi native game -- a better approach is to follow the Constitution, and Twelfth Amendment.
You want Trump, I understand that, but the Constitution doesn't take sides -- the Twelfth amendment delegates selection to the House, which will probably want Pence (maybe Kasich.)
If that's not what you want you should have considered potential electoral alternatives when you made a voting decision (as Bernie advised.) Now you seem to be getting an attack of buyers remorse -- you wanted Trump but are likely to get Pence.
You said the disclosed emails may have hurt Clinton's campaign. My response was meant to convey there are many factors at work and it's unfair to separate out those injurious to Clinton.
The press has consistently covered the leak/hack and almost totally ignored the content of the emails -- they are not normally loathe to cover Wikileaks material. Secondly, respected journalists stated, on the record, they were disturbed their colleagues had decided to be advocates rather than journalists. The press fawned all over DT in the primaries and then turned on him as soon as we went to the general -- as strategized in Podesta's emails. The content of those thousands of emails was extremely relevant to the 2016 race, and the collective power of the media might have covered it more thoroughly than the few intrepid alternative outlets that tried.
I am exactly NOT playing the outcome-determi native game. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and taking abuse from Trump's people.
Our country is really messed up -- but it's NOT because the people are rotten. It's because the press and the government are all in thrall to TPTB and corporate interests.
I would dearly love to follow the Constitution and our laws, no matter the outcome, but how? Interpretations have been easily bent .... by everyone.
More importantly, so what? What if I did want Trump? Is that illegal? It seems like an awful lot of AMERICANS wanted Trump to be president -- so where do you get off smearing all those people?
Arrogance helped put us in this situation and I would suggest that many of us here need to lose that attitude. Maybe even LISTEN.
We got our a$$e$ whooped -- but few in the DP seem to care about why. That ticks me off. You lot can all run around screaming about Russians under the bed, pretending we don't do the exact same thing and worse (I'm pretty sure Russia hasn't bombed nine countries in the last fifteen years and hasn't massed troops on our borders) -- but we'd be much wiser to watch what the Democrats are pulling as we do.
The press and the government are playing US all for fools. Many are being misled. I know you don't mean to be. I understand that. How does that feel, RMF?
Finally, did I ever say the msm stole emails? Has anyone? What are you talking about?
According to Assange and Murray this was a leak from inside the DNC. We have no reason to disbelieve that. And if I hear one more purported progressive defend the CIA I will implode.
Did I defend theft? THAT's why we must be objective. So people like YOU don't put people like ME away.
I prefer neither but am arguing the Constitution and a Constitutional pathway to deal with the cloud cast over the election.
The EC is not informed about the depth or source of the DNC theft -- the House has potential to be fully informed and is in a position to make an informed decision. If the House still wants Trump they can select Trump. And if the people don't like the House's choice -- if it's Pence -- they can register their disapproval at the polls two years hence.
If the EC does not punt to the House there will be a continuing pall cast over our democratic process, and great uncertainty about the scope and reach of the DNC theft, and it's impact on the election outcome. Presidential selection by House disposes of that uncertainty, and provides a government entity -- the House -- accountable to the people. [The EC is not accountable to voters in any way, except the fine faithless electors must pay in some states. But even so I am not aware than any of the 157 faithless electors have ever actually been fined.]
And all this bullshit about the Russians doing it? Who the hell cares? I frankly don't give a flying fart who did it. We all knew what DNC was doing, and whoever leaked the emails (most probably a Bernie supporter in the DNC) was doing a public service. So give him/her three cheers and an attaboy.
Thinking about that should lead you to conclude larceny and fraud are indefensible, but maybe not in your case, as you seem inclined to blame the victim.
I realize you want Trump, but as explained elsewhere the Constitution doesn't take sides, and you are more likely to end up with Pres Pence. So sorry you might not get the demagogue you wanted, but will have to settle for second best.
Now if this were a private email between Hillary and a secret lover, I would feel different.
Hopefully, that answers your question.
And secondly, you obviously don't realize anything. In fact, I wanted and voted for Jill Stein. So don't be so goddamned presumptive about other peoples motivations when you know nothing
The only remaining contenders are Trump (electoral vote) or Pence (House vote.)
Ironically the candidate with the greater popular vote is, like Stein, no longer a contender.
So anyone arguing against the Twelfth Amendment is arguing for Trump. That is the consequence of your argument taken to it's natural outcome.
I concede that an EC punting of the decision to the House favors Pence.
But our democratic process would be best served by following Constitutional procedure outlined in the Twelfth Amendment, especially in a situation involving theft of prejudicial info from only one of the contestant campaigns.
A simple sports analogy, requiring unbiased application of rules, should be conclusive.
Add to that Comey's violation of the Hatch Act, and the enormous interference by Trumpolini lawyers by the dozens in e.g., Michigan 'recounts' etc. and what can anyone sensible not suspect?
Here, for example, the supposition that Marc Ash is a CIA plant.
Next, can we hear from jimmyjames?
The House has investigative and subpoena authority (Benghazi,) and is in a more informed position to select the president.
If they still want Trump they can have Trump -- and House is accountable to voters every two years -- arguably that's more democratic than the EC. So what's wrong with that -- it's Constitutional to the letter.
However, expressing the possibility, or sharing the opinion that Russia, or any country, could have influenced our election, does not mean that it happened. Whatever evidence there is seems to be all circumstantial. I know that some prosecutors in our court system have been able to convict on circumstantial evidence alone; but, it isn't right.
If there is solid proof that the voting machines have been hacked by Russia, China, or some other country, then the proof should be made known.
Funny how something that gets repeated often enough becomes accepted as the truth.
No wonder we're having trouble sorting out this Wikileaks vs. CIA propaganda. And what have we to go on to decide?
1) History: Where have we heard this before? Iraq's weapons of mass destruction comes to mind....
2) Common sense: Distributed to each but cultivated by few.
3) Logic: Using common sense to sort out "cui bono".
Why didn't you care that Clinton hadn't held a press conference in almost a year? I am not attacking Hillary here. I am questioning YOU. Why are you holding Trump to a different standard than you were holding Clinton?
Can you admit you have biases, and then perhaps that you are not being clear-eyed?
Ah, yes - it is known as the "Big Lie Technique"
Like other contributors, I have seen nothing in the way of substantiation of these allegations by various governmental agencies. Including Obama, who has been responsible along with Hillary for causing 'regime change' in at least 7 countries while she was SoS.
Where's the proof? There has been documented proof of the DNC and the Democratic party establishment having cheated, stolen, suppressed voters, and rigged the the primary process, yet all that did was prove that the Democratic party and its leaders are corrupted by the continuing flow of money in politics. No one has gone to jail, and the Democratic party apologists say that it isn't anything illegal. Hmmm?
Ash, these are only unproven allegations, nothing more. You're now dirty.
Assange says it's an inside leak and he has been honest so far.
Even if it were Russia, all they did was release undoctored emails, similar to what the NSA does secretly.
NO ONE HACKED THE ELECTION COUNT.
The hysteria and the obfuscation are disappointing .. especially when it's coming from our own people.
MICHIGAN?
And a wrong-doer should not profit from his wrong-doing.
Let's not politicize his sacrifice.
Additionally, while the term "hacking" is generally used to denote illegal computer access and tampering, the concept of hacking, and hence the term, can be stretched to cover illegal human actions involving the storage and processing of information such as the destruction or alteration of paper ballots or even the early termination of manual vote counting. I could, for example, call the action by the Michigan attorney general in stopping the re-count, hacking the election count.
NO ONE THINKS THE RUSSIANS AFFECTED THE VOTE COUNT.
:-D
From Wikipedia:
"Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that are free and fair but emptied of substantive meaning in their ability to change the state's policies, motives, and goals.
"In other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianis m. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state's continuous use of propaganda techniques."
That is the system that some of you wish to reinstate. It has always been intended to make the citizens think they have some control of decisions.
The other system is just fascism.
Does that help you choose?
If everyone who believed Iraq had WMDS and were wrong tells you anything do you have the commonsense to be skeptical? Skeptical as in run for your life skeptical.
I've followed you for many years, Jim Fetzer. You have always been a man of truth and honesty and I have the utmost respect for you. I am also quickly losing any and all respect for Reader Supported News and have stopped my contributions due to that lost respect.
Thank you for your post and link to an important and revealing source of information. We are in perilous times and we all have to stand up to the fascist rule trying to overcome our democracy.
When he closes Guantanimo.
The Electoral College's adoption rested not only on the Hamilton quote Mr. Ash renders. Another premise was assuring that the Northern states would not be able to dominate elections because their vote-eligible populations were much larger than those of the Southern states.
Today, the Electoral College protects against political control's being held by California, Texas, most of the Eastern Seaboard states, and Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio.
The Republicans claim, rightly, that if one discounts the fraudulent "votes" Hillary enjoyed, Trump won the popular vote (and the Electoral College). But, suppose (contrary to fact) Hillary did win the popular vote and, for THAT reason, alone, became President, despite she lost all the states Trump won. Then California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois would have THEIR President, but MOST of the nation would have been disenfranchised for this year.
The CIA, FBI, and DNI have presented zero evidence that can support, or even make issuable, their "Russia-hacked- the-election" allegation. Obama has refused to release any evidence that, he suggests, supports the allegation of the CIA, FBI, and DNI. Mr. Ash shames himself.
CONTINUED WITH PART TWO
No party apparatchik will ever select a person who has a conscience or asserts his own independence to be an elector.
How would we ever know or be able to prove it?
Progressives, true progressives, need to keep their heads and set their priorities. This is mass hysteria generated by the government to cover their own negligence and abuse, perhaps crimes.
Russia is NOT the issue. It is the red herring.
I feel like I'm trying to take the car keys away from a friend who's drunk too much (koolaid).
The only evidence out there says it was not the Russians.
Did you vote? Did Russia make you vote for someone?
What does that have to do with anything? Your vote didn't count; only the electors' votes really do, and they can vote for anyone constitutionall y eligible--even someone who didn't run.
Your statement about electors merely indicates you haven't been following the threads carefully.
Now as for "what does that have to do with anything" read stevee's question again and you will have your answer.
First. By your own statement anyone voting in states where electors are required to honor the result of the popular vote obviously have their vote counted. Same for apportioned states.
As for the remainder of states, time, tradition in the form of Justice Douglas' famous penumbras and emanations have set a precedence on the side of requirement. Though we have had no reason to date for a definitive ruling, that it has been ruled that states have the right to administer the EC voters as they see fit seems precedent.
It would appear that to do otherwise would put the SC in the ridiculous position of ruling the constitution is unconstitutiona l rather than amendable.
Now let's see if ANYONE, Republican or Democrat, makes a move toward amending the EC out of existence .. or if they let it go, as they did after 2000.
That is the real issue and most of the vague, scattershot allegations simply obscure the fundamental issue.
Was there theft: Yes.
Was it prejudicial: Yes
What to do: EC punt; send selection to House
Outcome: If voters don't like House's choice they need only wait two years to send a voting-booth message disputing that choice.
This kind of thing happens all the time. They even have a name for it: the October Surprise. It is NOT a constitutional crisis and it would be extremely foolish to manipulate the rules to suit a short term goal with potentially catastrophic long term effects.
Does ANYBODY think beyond their nose anymore? Do you know what chaos you'd unleash in every future election if you did this? For what? So you can send it to the House and get the same result?
You want to use a cannon to stop a bicycle. What has happened to reason?
Explain the "chaos" that would ensue -- I don't see that at all --- please elucidate.
[I don't recall any continuing chaos after Nixon resigned; more like a collective sigh of relief. The progressive hysteria you mention is more properly assigned to those resisting Constitutional procedures.]
Invoking the Twelfth amendment is expressly Constitutional, the opposite of a crisis.
I do concede it's likely to result in Pence rather than Trump, but I avoid the outcome-determi native argument and instead opt for the Constitutional one.
It was not the crime that got Nixon in trouble. It was the cover up.
If there was theft, there is no proof by whom and certainly none that Trump did it. If at some later date he is charged, begin impeachment proceedings.
And fwiw, tomorrow the EC is going to make Trump officially PEOTUS.
We aren't doing a very good job of deciding, are we?
The two most despised candidates in history is the best we can come up with?
Despite the fact that your question assumes as fact statements that have not been placed in evidence, it appears we actually could use some outside help, because the inside game is rotten to the core.
That's mind bending.
After finding out these distinctions the GOP state legislatures then made new rules that were specifically detrimntal against those characteristics.
We also saw super long lines in many Democratic counties -- often because the number of machines was reduced.
There were also biases used to purge voters from polls, evidenced by a greater percentage of Dems being cast off the rolls.
There IS evidence, OSC. Look at states with DP legislatures (if you can find any). They don't spend their time passing voting restrictions -- Republican legislatures do.
It's almost as if they don't think they can win based on their ideas.
If we require the ID, which does not seem unreasonable, then we need to make it easy to get and free -- or we could do the purple thumb bit or something.
What's important is that these tactics are systematic and purposeful. We know the GOP studied the differences between the two electorates and then targeted Dems. It may be clever but it's still crooked. We should maximize the vote yet Republicans often seem to be trying to restrict it.
What about shutting down machines --- those 5-hour lines are total bs -- and do not happen in rich areas. Gerrymandering is also a problem.
But the worst problem by far is black box voting. You say a photo ID is basic. I can see that pov. Can we agree it makes absolutely NO sense to have proprietary software in the machines? Who would think that's okay, that NO ONE, even election officials, can see the software?
We should all want honest elections. Sometimes we lose but it's better than not trusting the results.
I imagine as a conservative you're happy with the results of GOP strategies of the past twenty years --- lots of success. But is the country better off? I do not trust ANY of these w@nkers in DC.
Regards, OSC. Nice talking to you.
I heard today that some electors are getting many threats, telling them to vote against DT.
I also see the insults you and other conservatives sometimes get here.
I can't speak for anyone else, but on my own behalf I want to apologize for that. I am about as far left as you can get but I was raised by conservatives. I understand that they love this country too -- and are not always wrong :-)
I am troubled by the behavior of some, perhaps many, liberals. Indeed, I am ashamed. For a long time I thought liberals had the moral high ground but 2016 has put the lie to that. That young woman made up the story about Trump supporters grabbing her hijab! Violent protests in Portland. Hysteria online. Refusing to recognize Trump as president etc. Ridiculous.
I will be fighting Trump if his policies stink but he is my president and I wish him the best -- wisdom and mercy foremost.
I have not believed conservatives that the government cannot be trusted, that the press is unfair, that the Clintons are rotten to the core. Well, I'd say it's clear conservatives have been right about many things -- but heaven forbid any of us learn anything!
I find the DP's problems disheartening -- but I also believe we are a robust nation and will survive, thrive and lead again, and I hope somehow we will do that together. America is strongest when we are united.
To learn more, try watching the film, Heist: Who Stole the American Dream? It is a primer on what happened over the past 40 years in this country that clearly led to the possibility of a demagogue taking power.
Our point is that we aren't willing to swallow whole either unsupported claims that Russia sought to control the outcome of the election, or that Russia intends to control the US through Trump.
NOR are we willing to destroy what little remains of the Constitution by setting up the electors of the Electoral College as arbitors of the popular vote. They have a duty to be certain the president-to-be is qualified (is a citizen at least 35 years of age who has resided in the United States for at least 14 years), and to adhere to the procedure set forth in the Constitution, as amended, and obey any laws their state has passed governing how they must or may cast their electoral votes.
If we want some different system, we MUST first make our choice into statute. We must NOT alter the provisions of the Constitution and the various states' laws by some sort of "popular" acclaim.
But, until concrete proof is made public, it's laughable the Democrats, the CIA and Obama are acting so disingenuously. The US has directly or indirectly meddled in numerous foreign elections, orchestrated coups, assasinated elected officials, invaded countries to change regimes. Thousands if not millions of people have died because of this. You can bet right now US intelligence agencies are hacking into foreign governments systems to affect whatever they want to. I'm not a Trump supporter, but this mess has me completely disgusted with both parties. Neither of them deserves to lead our country. A plague on both their houses.
Ah,but one question is still --- why, IF they did so, did they ONLY HACK HILLARY AND THE DEMS, and not the juicy bits from Trumpolini and his minions?
I hope he tweets the whole time he's president. I want to find out about Area 51.
As far as I know, there's no evidence for the former, and the latter was, in my opinion, a good deed. Let's not get distracted by this new McCarthyism...t he important thing about the hack, or the unsanctioned release of documents, as Wikileaks alleges, was the content of said documents, not how they became public.
For the record, nobody had any problem when Bibi Netanyahu was wandering about the countryside (and even into the halls of Congress) campaigning for Mitt Romney. Trying to influence foreign elections is a game all the great powers...includ ing the good old US of A...play all the time.
This is the most logical conclusion I have seen printed in these comments.