The Constitution and contested presidential elections

The historical truth is that the electoral college exists because of slavery.

It is evil and it is stupid.

One day the progressive vote in the U.S. will so outnumber the regressive vote that the electoral college will become irrelevant. This will happen mainly when the traitorous and treacherous republican party's continued attempts to suppress the vote will be finally defeated once and for all.

Next issue.

>2 JGL53:

Your ignorance is impeccable.

"Of course, that litigation process within the states may involve rulings from the United States Supreme Court, as in Bush v. Gore from 2000."

"Of course"? But, Bush v. Gore never should have happened--never should have been granted a hearing. It was for Florida and Florida law to determine how Florida ballots were to be judged and validated, not the U.S. Supreme Court. Who says? The Constitution of the United States "says," that's who.

Why "of course"? The Constitution itself vests authority to set, arbitrate and rule upon rules, regulations and procedures for qualifying electors, voters, ballots, etc., in the electoral processes. In other words, if the electoral processes are the affair of states' authorities, legislative and judicial, to set and to settle, that's because that's how the Constitution's framers and their heirs decided--with GOOD REASON!--that it ought to be.

The last (highest) state court which hears and rules on disputes, "cases and controversies," is the FINAL authority of what election law and practices are in each of the respective states. If we don't grasp and honor this, we're arbitrarily mucking up a well-established constitutional order and we're doing that out of ignorance and stupidity --which our forbears had surmounted in themselves and their own times.

There are, yes, cases and controversies which can and do arise in election law and which also directly touch upon federal rules of procedure, federal statutes and Constitutional rights and duties. But these are exceptions, not the rule. For a federal judge or court panel to intervene in state electoral authority requires an issue which is strictly and clearly a federal case.

A example can be seen a hypothetical scenario: the full-faith-and-credit clause. (Article IV, Section 1 ) and the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by which "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Taken together, these entitle any citizen of a state to move to another state and be fully entitled to the rights and privileges which all other citizens-residents of that state enjoy. The right to vote---the same as any other citizen of the state, for example, is a federally-recognized right under the Fourteenth Amendment and, should a state, California, say, attempt to prohibit people from, say, Texas, from moving there and taking up regular residence and registering to vote and exercise that right, --because the state of California fears that these Texas immigrants just might "vote the 'wrong' way," such a controversy can and should be heard and settled in--as a last resort, at any rate--a federal court.

If my recollection is correct, in Bush v. Gore, the first effect of federal intervention was the improper grant of an injunction halting (repeatedly!, as it moved from lower to higher court-reviews) the ballot-recounting in certain Florida constituencies. But Florida's state courts had already ruled that the recount process was legal and proper and that it should go on as was being done--I believe that they ruled that way without having to halt the recounts in the meantime. But Bush campaign lawyers weren't having it. And they took the matter to the federal courts --which shouldn't have had jurisdiction in the matter. Had these shenanigans not been allowed, Florida law could have provided for an orderly recount and conclusion of the certification of the ballots. That was prevented and it was prevented by federal courts' interventions and injunctions halting the recount which the parties argued in court.

A link to some discussion of what could happen in a contested election, which we are almost certainly going to have:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/contested-election-brawl-c...

On one relevant law,

“It is kind of a nightmare of convoluted verbiage,” said Ohio State constitutional law professor Edward Foley. “I’ve studied that piece of text for years now. I wouldn’t be honest to say that I completely understand it. It’s just impenetrable.”

>2 JGL53: The historical truth is that the electoral college exists because of slavery.

This isn't true. If it were true, Southern states would have pushed it, and northern states would have resisted. That's simply not how the issue broke down at all. We have detailed records of the votes, for starters. May I suggest you read one of the dedicated histories of the writing of the constitution, such as Richard Beeman's Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution?

>9 timspalding:

I misspoke (miss-posted?). I should have said the southern states would not have agreed to the electoral college if they were not allowed to count their slaves each essentially as 3/5th of a citizen. Thus the electoral college came about because of this compromise giving southern states a leg up on the non-slave owning states.

Thus the electoral college exists, as such, because of an agreed-upon compromise giving extra representation to states due to their having the institution of slavery.

>10 JGL53:

So you've got three issues going on here—the Connecticut Compromise, The Electoral College and the 3/5ths Clause. They are intertwined, but not quite as schematically as you propose. My understanding is that the focus of the 3/5th compromise was more squarely on representation in Congress—and direct taxation—than representation in the Electoral college. The 3/5 number came up very early as a way of estimating the taxable wealth of southern states, and while the battle was ugly, it was resolved before the Connecticut compromise or Electoral College were.

The real sticking point here was the Connecticut compromise, and that was really about small states and large, not slave and free. While the 3/5 clause had an effect on representation in the Electoral College, the larger factor was the method of determining electors by the total of senators plus representatives. I mean, compare the effects: In the election of 1788, fully 20 or the 69 electors, or 28% of the total, were the result of the senatorial allocation, compared to 18% today. This is a larger boost for small states than the 10.7% boost in power* that slave states received for counting 3/5 of 17%.

Anyway, it's certain that the 3/5 clause gave Southern states more political power than they would have had if slaves had been counted for nothing (and less than if they had been counted as fully part of the enumerated population). But having an electoral college, rather than direct election or election by the Congress, was more about finding a way to avoid two dangers they identified—that every state would just vote for their local hero, there being no national political figures of significance, except Washington, and the fear of the people electing an unsuitable demagogue.

FWIW, the real sticking point for the South—the actual point when the south sincerely threatened to chuck it all and scuttle the Constitution—came over the issue of the regulation of the slave trade.

I'd be interested in seeing someone chart Congressional and Electoral-College numbers twice—once as it happened and once if slaves had not been considered. My working theory is that the Civil War would have happened sooner if slaves had not been counted, because, as you say, counting slaves gave the South an advantage, and the Civil War was fundamentally about an inflection point in political power. By 1860 the long decline of Southern political power had reached such a point that a candidate had been elected—Lincoln—without any Southern support whatsoever; he didn't even appear on most ballots in the South. With Lincoln the South saw the writing on the wall—the outsized power of what abolitionists called the "Slaveocracy" was over.

That's my working theory, but it would require more than just changing some numbers, because, the first really sectional electin was 1856. And Buchannan won '56 handily enough that losing the slavery-electors would scarcely have tipped things to Fremont.

>6 Earthling1:
... "ambiguity, history, reality"...

More like contrived "ambiguity" where none existed and a flagrant disregard for history and, still more, reality.

The opinion handed down in Bush v. Gore and which took up, en bloc, related counter-suits' claims, was so bizarre, so clearly beyond the pale that the Justices, who, by agreement refused all public comment, were photographed leaving in their chauffeur-driven cars, and, even behind the windows, their faces were stark, as though they were in shock from what they'd just done. Some who saw them emerge from the conference on the case described them as "ashen-faced."

They couldn't deny to themselves that they'd done something disgraceful and so alarming in its break with long-standing precedence that they formally ruled that this case was exceptional in a special way: it could not be cited in case-law as precedent in a future case.

What you attempt here is the layman's equivalent of doing just that--trying to rely on it as a precedent for later cases and controversies, albeit out-of-court. The Supreme Court's ruling forbade that tactic to lawyers in their court-briefs' filings.

So, I object to your attempt to bring in presumed "'facts' not in evidence" before us and use them as precedent. They're no such thing.

>10 JGL53:

Account was hacked, surely.

>13 Earthling1: "Did you know Hitler got most of his information from the newspaper? He was not especially bookish." ...

And where do you get most of your information?

… “It was at this period that the young man (i.e. Hitler) who could not stand school became a voracious reader, subscribing to the Library of Adult Education in Linz and joining the Museum Society, whose books he borrowed in large numbers. His young friend remembered him always surrounded by books, of which his favorites were works on German history and German mythology.”(33)

-- p. 16, Shirer,William; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: a history of Nazi Germany | London, Secker and Warburg, 1960,

_____________________________
(33) PP. 54-55 Adolf Hitler: Mein Jugenfreund; KUBIZEK, August, Graz: L. Stocker (1953) / Young Hitler : the story of our friendship / August Kubizek ; translated from the German by E. V. Anderson ; with an introduction by H. R. Trevor-Roper. Kubizek, August. Maidstone : Mann, 1973

>15 proximity1:

To further this point, It wasn't the reading of newspapers pre-Hitler reign that was the issue. It was the papers when he was gaining power.

>17 Earthling1:

I'm not surprised you'd assume--without bothering even to ask--that I'd not read anything of Kershaw. It's a telling comment on your intellect and judgment. We have nothing more to discuss about this matter since you obviously lack the kind of judgment which I look for in a correspondent. But, before I hit the "ignore" option and cease ever looking again at your idtiotic bullshit here, I'll just add the following.

"merely a reporter"?

William Shirer ("foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and the International News Service" (Wikipedia)) lived and worked in Germany. He was an experienced and astute observer, writer and commentor on political affairs before, during and for a time after Hitler's rise to power--which he personally witnessed from inside Germany. (... "I am but fifty yards from (Hitler). … I have seen that face many times at the great moments of his life. But today! It is afire with scorn, anger, hate, revenge, triumph." ... (Rise and Fall))

Ian Kershaw is a British academic, born in 1943. Shirer was watching and studying Hitler before Kershaw was even born. Kershaw has no living memory of those times, never met, spoke to and exchanged views with contemporaries-- Germans, French, British, Americans-- about the events which were happening as they happened. Kershaw, a failed Medievalist, turned to the study of Germany only in the 1970s.

Questions to you--which I expect you'll duck or ignore so I needn't worry about checking your replies which I daresay won't be forthcoming--or honest, if they're given:

Have you even read Shirer's Rise and Fall?
I doubt the answer is "Yes," but, unlike you, I thought I'd ask--it's one of the little things which set us apart.

I've read Shirer's Rise and Fall and Berlin Diary cover to cover and gone back into the former many times. I've read large parts of several of Kershaw's books on Hitler. I'm less impressed with his work there than you are with Shirer's--which work you probably don't know from having read it.

"merely a reporter"--

George Orwell's, (i.e. Eric Blair) , best writing was his journalism.

Ernest Hemingway? (Kansas City Star) (Nobel Prize in Literature in 1954) --"merely" another "reporter"?

In the 1920s and 30s much of the very best writing and many of the very best writers were reporters and it is quite insulting to refer to that profession as "mere" in a writer. The tradition didn't end then, either.

Robert Caro? ("Caro began his professional career as a reporter with the New Brunswick Daily Home News (now merged into the Home News Tribune) in New Jersey." (Wikipedia)) (two Pulitzer Prizes in Biography, two National Book Awards (including one for Lifetime Achievement), the Francis Parkman Prize (awarded by the Society of American Historians to the book that "best exemplifies the union of the historian and the artist"), three National Book Critics Circle Awards, the Mencken Award for Best Book);

John Steinbeck ( war correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune) (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction (1940)
Nobel Prize in Literature (1962)) ,

Albert Camus? (Nobel Prize in Literature at the age of 44 in 1957,)

Jean Cavaillès, founder, director, of the (originally-titled) clandestine newspaper, Libération* (1941)(Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur; Compagnon de la Libération – decree of 20 November 1944; Croix de guerre 39/45; Médaille de la Résistance).

--merely "reporters"?

Get lost.

_________________________________

* Not to be confused with the newspaper of the same name later founded by Jean-Paul Sartre and Serge July in 1973.

>17 Earthling1:

Unlike many here, I think you are well intentioned. But, unlike many of the protagonists on this board, Proximity knows the shit he's arguing. I do not always agree with him on interpretation, but I rarely find anything lacking in depth. I would ask questions before trying to deflate the argument being presented.

There are some on this board that aren't worth making enemies with, as opposed to some that cannot help being enemies of even themselves.

>20 Earthling1:

Again, although you make a fairly sturdy point; are you proclaiming that truth is yours to bestow? I'm advising you to ask questions rather than proclaim, because the person you are proclaiming to may see something in a different light and is not as ignorant as you seem to perceive. The matter at hand is this alone; you took for granted something written in a book about Hitler and Proximity has offered rebuttal. That is not truth, truth is; Hitler had done horrible things. The matter of proxy in which Hitler performed those deeds or how he was educated are not of absolute truths. There was no reason to obliterate conversation.

I challenged a critic's disparagement of Wm. Shirer's Rise & Fall of the Third Reich to declare whether or not he'd actually read that book.

My guess is that there's still been no answer to that question. My guess is that this is because the answer is, "No," and that's an embarrassment.

Okay, then: E.T.A. : Question evaded. Conclusion: "Not read." LOL!

It's considered a very long book by many people and, even when it was published, many people were put off by such a lengthy book. Looks good on the bookshelf, though, doesn't it?, Earthling?

The main matter, of course, was E1's contention that Hitler's knowledge had little reading behind it other than what he read in the newspapers:

"Did you know Hitler got most of his information from the newspaper? He was not especially bookish." ...

Compared to what?

Compared to our own times, Hitler was a "book-worm", extremely bookish.

Does Obama have his own specially leather-bound edition of the works of Shakespeare? Did he, does he travel with it whenever leaving home? Hitler did. True, it was a translation and, above all, Shakespeare loses more than almost any other writer in translation. Most native-English speakers today cannot parse his English, let alone those who are dependent on a translation. Still, no one made Hitler admire Shakespeare and it was, according to anecdotal account, not some superficial affectation--so common with Shakespeare-envying people. He seems to have found it genuinely compelling.

E1's contention is not supported in historical evidence; it's refuted in it. When shown this, he disparaged the text's author as a mere journalist. But journalists of the late 19th to middle 20th centuries knew and lived in a different world. Many, many were voracious readers and excellent writers. Today's average journalist's reading and writing--for their quality--doesn't even approach what was once just ordinary everyday good writing--by newspaper hacks who'd read on a level few match today.

None of this is presented to morally "redeem" Hitler. These are just the facts of the matter.

When it comes to other facts of another matter, that of whether E1 has even read the author and book he's belittled as the work of a "mere journalist," we have to guess the answer. I know what my guess is and it isn't flattering.

Better a "mere journalist" than a big-mouth who speaks from ignorance and, challenged on it, ducks and hides.

But, to close this review, there's something else quite bizarre in E1's claim that Hitler got most of his information from the newspaper. We weren't told at what point in his life this is supposed to have been true. If by "information", we're to understand his youthful education, that's not particularly the case. If it meant instead that, as Reich Chancellor Hitler read little outside of newspapers, again, the idea strikes me as absurd.

No one would have known better than Hitler that the newspapers, once Joseph Goebbels, "Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945," (Wikipedia) had brought about Hitler's strict supervision and censorship of the German news press and broadcasting, would simply reflect his own approved views. Why, in light of that, he'd have bothered to turn to them for any real, useful information is not explained to us.

Maybe what was meant was that Hitler got most of his information as Reich Chancellor from the foreign press.

(Semper caveat lector! : "Wikipedia")
___________________________________

... "The propaganda ministry was organised into seven departments: administration and legal; mass rallies, public health, youth, and race; radio; national and foreign press; films and film censorship; art, music, and theatre; and protection against counter-propaganda, both foreign and domestic.(129) Goebbels's style of leadership was tempestuous and unpredictable. He would suddenly change direction and shift his support between senior associates; he was a difficult boss and liked to berate his staff in public.(130) Goebbels was successful at his job, however; Life wrote in 1938 that "(p)ersonally he likes nobody, is liked by nobody, and runs the most efficient Nazi department."(131) John Gunther wrote in 1940 that Goebbels 'is the cleverest of all the Nazis', but could not succeed Hitler because 'everybody hates him'.(132)" ...
________________

Back to the thread's topic and back to ignoring this thread and its OP's author.

>24 Earthling1:

All you had to do was ask him whether or not he read Kershaw or Lukacs. By me telling you that he knows his shit on the basis of observation, you accuse me of being his cheerleader and his minion. The portion about espousing or considering only truth was not my choosing, you said that was your interest. I simply said that this was not a matter of truth, as you admit that we cannot wholly determine Hitler's path of education. You could read 151 books and only 6 paragraphs in two of them might make a formative change. The whole argument you're into now has very little consequence. Topic, whether or not Hitler is bookish. It seems to me that the young Hitler vs. middle-aged man Hitler are not the same.

George Washington was not particularly bookish, he predominantly read newspapers. Does this mean that his wisdom was somehow inferior to the likes of others more bookish? Sometimes a wealth of collected knowledge has little bearing and that small samples of truth or wisdom are far more effective.

P.S., your discussion has improved under attack. I admire Lukacs, although I have only read 2 of his books, I find his work interesting.

>32 Earthling1: If you think I'm the one who has been out of line, I can show many posts illustrating the behavior of others.

If I'm out of line, how is it relevant what others do? Either I'm in the right or I'm in the wrong, regardless of the behaviour of others.

>34 Earthling1:

Yes, but what has the fact that some people don't follow those rules got to do with whether or not I try to follow the rules?

>32 Earthling1:

I actually feel your pain, I have been attacked pretty fiercely on this forum. I don't think you did anything way out of line, I was just trying to let you know that Proximity isn't a fool. Of course nobody is perfectly brilliant.

I have read enough about Hitler to know the type, I enjoyed Haffner's book as well as Beevor's Berlin and Lukacs ' Five Days... I have not read Shirer, I dedicate most of my longer reads to History pre American Civil War. However, Journalists in the by gone era were much better at investigation and provided very keen insight and I don't believe that that discredits him at all. Kershaw and his recognition from the modern world means about as much as an Oscar to me at this point. Either way, I take no side on this debate of their merits.

>36 Earthling1:

So if you or I see someone behaving badly, we should do the same? I don't think that follows, and you have been quite vocal in telling people to think for themselves.

#39---don't you know John that those who think for themselves think the same way?

ICYMI. How to Contest a Disputed Election, Parts 1, 2, and 3:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-resolve-contested-election-part-1-states-and-the...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-resolve-contested-election-part-2-how-congress-c...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-resolve-contested-election-part-3-when-elections...

Also available as last three chapters of $5.99 kindle:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/announcing-laws-and-norms-disputed-presidential-elec...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08LQTTJ9R/ref=sr_1_1