|Constitutional Logic of the Left|
|Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:18|
In an editorial today by the Los Angeles Times, "noted" (and yes, the quotations are intentional and in this case accurate as the argument he is about to make defies any logic or reason) Supreme Court journalist Kenneth Jost actually states, and tries to argue, that the Electoral College is unconstitutional. Really - I am not making that up.
As most people with more than a 4th grade education can tell you (or at least research), Article 2 of the Constitution defines and sets up the Electoral college. Let that sink in for a moment; an actual, defined property of the Constitution is being challenged as unconstitutional.
Kenneth yammers on about "one person, one vote", and "Hillary got more votes". He talks about it being a "product of a morally corrupt decision" and that it has never functioned as Hamilton originally intended (of course, we never seen Jost arguing that the 10th Amendment, or the 2nd Amendment, is being followed as originally intended). Ignoring his appeal to original intent, the question becomes one of "moral corruption".
Jost defines the very counter to his argument - then ignores it by saying he believes it's never functioned appropriately. Hamilton was the main force behind the Electoral College, and it was pushed as a way for the smaller States to be protected from the tyranny of the majority of the larger States. For the 2016, election, the popular vote margin for Clinton is completely accounted for by the State of California; should one State be able to dictate the entire election? No! That is why we have the Electoral College.
Additionally Jost argues that the Electoral College is supposed to be deliberative and a check on passion. We've heard from many that "Trump is not qualified", yet by any measure of the qualifications defined in the Constitution - he passes. Some may not believe he has the experience to be President, but those same people were incredibly quiet when then-Senator Obama (who had never completed a single term as a politician) was running for the office.
This boils down to a case of cognitive disassociation. Jost is willfully ignoring the very words of the Constitition, and is in fact arguing that while it explicitly states there should be an Electoral College, and that the founding fathers were explicit in the reason and function thereof, they actually mean the opposite and it shouldn't apply.
Why? Politics. Pure and simple. He's opposed to a President Trump. So rather than do the legal (and even ethicaL) activity of being a vocal opposition and working for Trump's opponent in the 2020 election, he'd throw away the very documen which creates the position of the President in the first place. For if we can simply redefine away the Electoral College, then why can't we simply redefine away the Senate, or the House, or the Presidency itself? Further, why not simply state the 1st Amendment is wrong and it's now gone?
No, the liberal left lunatics (of whom Jost is apparently a leading member) believe a document should be so shredded and twisted to only state what THEY want, regardless of the plain words and reams of corroborating writings from the men who wrote the Constitution in the first place. Laws and rules as written are irrelevant, all that matters is the results. Machiavelli must be smiling from whatever place he currently resides, as the lunatic left (shall we call them the alt-left?) adheres so strongly to his famous rule of the Ends justify the Means.
|Last Updated on Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:20|