States cannot make any changes since it is a constitutional amendment.
The founders said we are a democracy
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
States cannot make any changes since it is a constitutional amendment.
evince
Truthmatters
You bet
To lesson the possibility that someone could get in power and then use that power to put in people who will help them retain power
It was to protect the people
And you can bet that there was provoking reasons for the decision at the time
evince
Truthmatters
They are trying dude
Which state(s) and what are they doing? They can try to propose an amendment but need 2/3 of the states.
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...o-override-presidential-election-results/amp/
Editor's Note: This is Part 4 of a series which will take an in depth look at election deniers in the 2022 midterms in an effort to assess their likelihood of success, their plans if elected, and their impact on election administration and democracy. This op-ed was adapted from Wertheimer’s Political Report, a weekly newsletter published by Democracy 21. Democracy 21 is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to protect and strengthen our democracy
There is a misconception that needs to be clarified about the potential impact of an upcoming Supreme Court case.
That misconception is this—if the “independent state legislature theory” is adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Harper, state legislatures will be empowered to override the choice of voters on Election Day in a presidential election.
That’s not correct.
Make no mistake, the Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper could dramatically and dangerously rewrite American democracy. Moore v. Harper will be argued before the Supreme Court on December 7. The case involves a gerrymandered North Carolina congressional map that was rejected by the state’s Supreme Court and is being defended by North Carolina legislators. They claim the state court’s decision violates the independent state legislature theory.
The independent state legislature theory has long been considered by many to be a radical, fringe idea. Simply put, it would prevent state courts from reviewing laws passed by state legislatures to redistrict congressional seats, or to establish voting rules or other laws applicable to federal elections.
In other words, a state Supreme Court would no longer have the right to decide whether state laws dealing with federal elections comply with the state’s own constitution.
Editor's Note: This is Part 4 of a series which will take an in depth look at election deniers in the 2022 midterms in an effort to assess their likelihood of success, their plans if elected, and their impact on election administration and democracy. This op-ed was adapted from Wertheimer’s Political Report, a weekly newsletter published by Democracy 21. Democracy 21 is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to protect and strengthen our democracy
There is a misconception that needs to be clarified about the potential impact of an upcoming Supreme Court case.
That misconception is this—if the “independent state legislature theory” is adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Harper, state legislatures will be empowered to override the choice of voters on Election Day in a presidential election.
That’s not correct.
Make no mistake, the Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper could dramatically and dangerously rewrite American democracy. Moore v. Harper will be argued before the Supreme Court on December 7. The case involves a gerrymandered North Carolina congressional map that was rejected by the state’s Supreme Court and is being defended by North Carolina legislators. They claim the state court’s decision violates the independent state legislature theory.
The independent state legislature theory has long been considered by many to be a radical, fringe idea. Simply put, it would prevent state courts from reviewing laws passed by state legislatures to redistrict congressional seats, or to establish voting rules or other laws applicable to federal elections.
In other words, a state Supreme Court would no longer have the right to decide whether state laws dealing with federal elections comply with the state’s own constitution.
evince
Truthmatters
It is obvious Madison was speaking about Democracy as it was defined at the time
That type of democracy is now called direct OR pure democracy
Look the terms up
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It should be repealed. It basically deleted state representation in the federal government
SmarterthanYou
rebel
allowing a majority of pacifist lazy fucksticks to determine the course of our nation is backwards, not forwards.
Seems the actual founders said they established a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, but then again, when had evince ever been right on anything?
A republic can be a democracy. How stupid are you people? Is an oak also a tree? Is a poodle also a dog? Or can only one word describe something?
evince
Truthmatters
Only by you Russians
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The 'Republic' part is the important part of this. The 'Democracy' part is just how you vote for the representatives in that republic. It's the minor part of it. One word can describe a Republic and that's Republic. Democracy doesn't explain much of anything other than a voting process.
evince
Truthmatters
Iran is a Republic. North Korea is a Republic. Communist China is a Republic. The USSR was a Republic.
Democracy is a very important part of what this country is.
By whom? They are practically deified in America. But I don't read Infowars, Qanon and other right-wing hate sites.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
mob rule is not freedom. it's tyranny of the majority. my rights are not subject to your whims and desires.
evince
Truthmatters
Then move to somewhere that the people can’t vote