Lonewolf wrote:
What difference does it make the object is to get the total number of people liveing in the country.
Lonewolf...
Article 1 Section 2 The US Constitution sets-up the taking of a Census every 10 years, and the 14th Amendment Section 2 states: "... The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct..."
This is how Congress had the Citizenship question as part of the Census, on and off, until Pres Obama asked Congress to eliminate the Citizenship question, and they did...
So, until Congress passes the inclusion of the Citizenship question, and the sitting President signs it into Law,
there will not be any such question on any Federal 10 Year Census...
And, the language used in the US Constitution and its Amendments does not specifically state the number of State Representatives or Presidential Electoral Delegates should be based on only Citizens, so only the full number of everyone living within a State must be used for Federal Elections until an Amendment is passed and Ratified stipulating Representation and Electorates must be based solely on US Citizenship...
Oldsailor65 wrote:
Three dogs are sitting in the waiting room of a vet’s office.
One is a poodle, one is a schnauzer and the other is a great Dane.
The poodle turns to the schnauzer and asks “why are you here?”
The schnauzer responds, “I’m 17 years old. I don’t see or hear very well. I’ve been having accidents in the house. My owner says I’m too old and sick so he brought me here to be put to sleep.”
The schnauzer asks the poodle “why are you here?”
The poodle responds, “I’ve not been myself lately. I’ve been especially high strung. I’ve been barking all the time, I’ve been snapping at people and I even bit one of the neighbor’s kids. Nobody knows why this has been happening. My owner says he can’t risk me biting somebody else so he brought me here to be put to sleep.”
The poodle and schnauzer ask the great Dane why he is here.
The great Dane responds: “My owner is this beautiful runway model. Yesterday she was walking around the house naked when she suddenly bent down to pick up something she dropped. She was bent over and naked when nature took over and the next thing I know I’m on top of her doing the doggie thing. I couldn’t help myself.”
The poodle asks: “so she brought you here to put to sleep?”
“Oh, no… I’m just here to get my nails trimmed.”
Three dogs are sitting in the waiting room of a ve... (
show quote)
Sounds like two-out-of-three dogs tell the truth...
JimMe wrote:
LogicallyRight... I cannot believe you don't even know the precedent of the 1800 Presidential Election... I learned this in 8th Grade US History in 1963 in Paterson, New Jersey in Public School # 9... The fact you don't know how the US Presidential Elections are truly determined if a Majority of Electoral Votes are not won is disturbing to me... It shows how poor the US Educational System has become, and how sad that you cannot interpret the US Constitution accurately...
You are not "Logically Right"... You're "Sadly Wrong"...
LogicallyRight... I cannot believe you don't even ... (
show quote)
LogicallyRight... I not only apologize for my hammering you regarding the procedures the US Constitution has given the House, I can say you were correct and I was wrong in my analysis... I'm the one who is "Sadly Wrong"... I forgot to look-up the 12th Amendment, and failed to realize if the Outgoing House doesn't Elect a President by the time the Incoming President is to be sworn-in, whomever is the sworn-in Vice-President on that day will also be sworn-in as President - and if no Incoming Vice-President has a Majority of Votes, the Speaker of the House becomes President, and the 25th Amendment Section 1 would need to apply because there would be no "Sitting President" to resume their Office, and this would mean the Speaker would be the President for the full 4 year term, and would nominate their own Vice-President that Congress would need to Vote for or against...
Thank you for being corrective...
Yours Truly... Sadly Wrong!!!
LogicallyRight wrote:
Sorry to dispute that, but that is not the way I read the Constitution. I'll stand by the way I wrote my comment. But, meanwhile, let's just agree to disagree. The likelihood of it ever getting that far is less then getting struck by lightening. Time to move on.
Logically Right
LogicallyRight... I cannot believe you don't even know the precedent of the 1800 Presidential Election... I learned this in 8th Grade US History in 1963 in Paterson, New Jersey in Public School # 9... The fact you don't know how the US Presidential Elections are truly determined if a Majority of Electoral Votes are not won is disturbing to me... It shows how poor the US Educational System has become, and how sad that you cannot interpret the US Constitution accurately...
You are not "Logically Right"... You're "Sadly Wrong"...
LogicallyRight wrote:
I stand corrected on the results going on for years. But I disagree on your interpretation. I just looked it up. If there is no one candidate receiving over 270 votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives. Each state gets one vote, based on the votes of there total representatives. This could still result in a 25 to 25 tie. Then the Vice President elect takes over until the issue is resolved in the House.
We can go on trying to litigate this ourselves, but I'm sure the Supreme Court could/would also have an input if necessary and it is beyond our resolving it here. Let's just agree that you were right and it will be resolved by Nomination day.
I claim to be Logically Right, but I'm not a lawyer and our laws aren't always logically right. But there appears to be an established process for breaking ties and such. Let it play out.
I stand corrected on the results going on for year... (
show quote)
You are incorrect about the Vice-President-Elect taking Office as President... The Outgoing House will Elect the President before January 3rd, and will take as many votes as needed to Elect a President before January 3rd... The precedent was set in 1800 when the House took 6 days and 36 Ballots to Elect Thomas Jefferson... I looked it up... And although there has never had to be an Outgoing Senate who had to Elect a Vice-President, they'll need to do so before the Incoming Senate is sworn-in on January 3rd...
Lonewolf wrote:
So calling out trump on the fact he's is the most incompetent president in the world !
Is evil !
Your understanding of "incompetence" and "evil" is itself a sign of "ignorance"... Not of "stupidity"... Of "not knowing better"... Of being schooled and finding validity in Democratic-Socialist Thinking that doesn't work...
LogicallyRight wrote:
You are probably right. And if some judge ruled that those states couldn't do that with the Electoral College, their votes would/could become null and void for that election. If it didn't change the outcome, no problem. If it did, it could put the whole election on hold for Months/Years. Now somehow I see that helping Trump and the Republicans and that is the exact outcome that those states trying to change the rules would hate the most.
Just trying to add one and one. That is how I see it so far. Looking for more input.
Logically Right
You are probably right. And if some judge ruled th... (
show quote)
After the States send their Electoral Votes to Congress by Early December, and there is a claim there are States that have violated the Constitution based on Article 1 Section 10, and the Fed Courts do void certain States' Votes that has no one have a Majority of Electorates, the US Constitution has the Congress Members and Vice-President who were in Office on the General Election Day be the ones who must Elect the President and/or the Vice-President, and do so prior to January 3rd...
So you see, the US Constitution ensures there cannot be any "... Months/Years..." between the General Election and the Swearing-in of Our President-Elect and Vice-President-Elect on January 20th...
LogicallyRight wrote:
That is old news. The new news is that various states, based on, "State Legislatures Laws and Regulations" are trying to force all delegates to vote for the person who wins the total vote in the United States and not just their state. Sounds to me like it violates the Constitution where the delegates are supposed to represent their States total and not the United States totals. They still can't get over the facts that Gore and Clinton lost by the rules.
One of the advantages of the delegates representing their state and only their state, that I never see mentioned, is a real close total U. S. popular vote. Remember hanging chads in Florida. Imagine that times fifty with State Legislatures, Governors etc. trying to manipulate the results for their favored candidate. They couldn't straighten that out in four years, especially with all of the illegal and dead and unregistered voting. Our jails would be overflowing. You better thank God for the Electoral college and hope the Supreme Court over rules those states that would try to make their delegates vote for the United States popular vote totals.
Logically Right
That is old news. The new news is that various sta... (
show quote)
Actually, the States that agree with each other in a Contract do violate the Constitution:
Article 1 Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
The Fed Courts will not do anything until the States act on the Contract and someone sues them for violating the Constitution...
proud republican wrote:
This should be without saying!! First Responders should be first to get tested since they are the ones on the front lines!!
Why worry about a few thousand people who can afford to get tested get tested... Especially when you consider, these celebs may be in touch with even more people in a 24 hour day than "First Responders"...
lindajoy wrote:
If they are going to do a voice vote then that implies there is nothing in the chamber rules to prohibit it..Good!!!
But its not a yelling match its an actual yay or nay counted as the name of the person is announced..... 👍
A "Voice Vote" is very often used, and the Speaker/Pres of Senate calls "How many in favor of the Bill say "Yea", and after all the "Yeas" are heard, they ask for the "Nays", and then the Speaker/Pres of Senate decides who they believe has the most votes and declares whichever side was in the Majority...
Usually, a Member of the House or Senate who doesn't think the Voting Result was accurate requests an individual vote, and the Speaker/Pres of Senate is obliged to have the Members cast their votes either electronically, or by "Roll-Call", the votes are then tallied and the Speaker/Pres Senate declares whichever side was in the Majority...
lpnmajor wrote:
How are delegates to the electoral college selected? Who do they work for?
lpnmajor... The Constitution gives the Individual State Legislatures the responsibility to assign an Electoral Delegate, one for each House of Representatives the State has, and two for the two Senators the State has... Example: California has 53 House Members and 2 Senators, so they have 55 Electorates who vote for the President and Vice-President based on the State Legislatures Laws and Regulations...
We have an Electoral College System of Electing Our President and Vice-President, and for all intent-and-purposes, we will have this System in place for generations to come...
That said, the Electoral Delegates were never looked at as having the privilege of voting for whoever they pleased, but rather who there State wanted them to vote for...
But in 4 of the last 8 Presidential Elections - dating back to 1988 - we've had 10 Electorates assert such a privilege simply because Our USA Constitution doesn't limit them from doing so...
And in 2016, there were massive calls for the Electorate to disregard their State's Populous Votes and vote for a specific Candidate...
It's time the Electoral Votes reflect only what they are meant to be... And this means an Amendment limiting who the Electorates Vote for...
I've come to the conclusion that Speaker Pelosi must throw huge stumbling blocks into the Senate's Bipartisan Economic Recovery Bill or face the Nation's Voters when she kills the Bill in the House...
She will not allow herself to be the one to actually vote against Bipartisan Economic Recovery...
So she made sure the Bipartisan Economic Bill died in the Senate...
Her actions are self-motivated and have nothing to do with the good of the USA Citizens...
2bltap wrote:
I have like many here on OPP have read or have seen videos pertaining to the death of JFK Jr. and have wondered if in fact he died in that plane he was piloting. So what do you all think about this?
Semper Fi
Mike
https://youtu.be/jh1PDyjn99w
You may be 100% accurate... What next... This will go nowhere...
nwtk2007 wrote:
They passed Bushes trillion dollar stimulus despite opposition to it by 90% of the population, me being one of them. It was the day representative government died. It's been different ever since, until Trump came along.
Pres Trump deserves a Conservative GOP Majority House and Senate... We the People need to ensure this in the 2020 General Elections... And the 2012 Midterms as well...