tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199546354351599164.post8584119288248826741..comments2023-09-10T06:09:39.729-04:00Comments on Everything in Particular: E in P Rerun:The Following is NOT a Hate Cartoon!Michael Serafin-St. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00222406476906035537noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199546354351599164.post-12987700927257915432008-01-23T18:33:00.000-05:002008-01-23T18:33:00.000-05:00This means, in essence, a Supreme Court challenge ...This means, in essence, a Supreme Court challenge to the Constitutionality of the Constitution itself! To my knowledge, that has never happened in our history. But in this particular case, I think a strong argument could be brought forth.Michael Serafin-St. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00222406476906035537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199546354351599164.post-51260816235316451532008-01-23T18:20:00.000-05:002008-01-23T18:20:00.000-05:00The provision in the Constitution in question is A...The provision in the Constitution in question is Article II, section 1. It details the (somewhat complicated) system we supposedly use today. <BR/><BR/>Calling the Convention would require either 2/3's of the states OR 2/3's of BOTH the Senate and House to agree to doing it. This is required by Article V.<BR/><BR/>THEN 3/4's of the states would have to approve the change.<BR/><BR/>In short, first the public would have to push for it, and then the states or Congress would have to be convinced. BUT there may be a shortcut by going to the Supreme Court!<BR/><BR/>If the Court could be convinced that the procedure in Article II-1 is, in fact, outmoded, and ultimately subject to revision BY THE PEOPLE, it could direct that Congress put the matter to a general vote, and there you go.Michael Serafin-St. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00222406476906035537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199546354351599164.post-17274720054284246902008-01-23T17:19:00.000-05:002008-01-23T17:19:00.000-05:00By a Constitutional Convention. Before that could...By a Constitutional Convention. Before that could happen, though, the politically potent way to proceed would be to generate petitions in all fifty states calling for one, to provide for the direct election of the President, but NO OTHER ISSUE.<BR/>Otherwise the whole law of the land would be open to revision, and that's considered to be too reckless a move to get enough support. It would be a one-issue affair, and the petition and subsequent debate would decide the matter.Michael Serafin-St. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00222406476906035537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199546354351599164.post-80821511050390619122008-01-23T11:03:00.000-05:002008-01-23T11:03:00.000-05:00Sounds good, simple and much more equitable--OK, h...Sounds good, simple and much more equitable--OK, how do we make it happen? I HATE the current system!Mary Stebbins Taitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10626507461216769140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199546354351599164.post-40390506256290598062008-01-21T23:17:00.000-05:002008-01-21T23:17:00.000-05:00Let's change things. The President is the only na...Let's change things. The President is the only nationally elected office. If we amend the Constitution properly we could get rid of all the baggage in between and just elect one by a direct vote of the people. That would make more economic sense, if nothing else!Michael Serafin-St. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00222406476906035537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2199546354351599164.post-41331723387146210112008-01-21T21:00:00.000-05:002008-01-21T21:00:00.000-05:00Interesting cartoon. I wrote more and if I ever d...Interesting cartoon. I wrote more and if I ever download it, I'll post it here.<BR/><BR/>The way we vote sucks. Our Michigan Primaries sucked this year.<BR/><BR/>The whole primary and voting system sucks. It's hardly a democracy, for all the talk about democracies.Mary Stebbins Taitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10626507461216769140noreply@blogger.com