How to make Colorado's vote not matter - in one easy lesson

The BBQ Pit
41

Dr. Deth, I’m focussing on this particular proposal in Colorada, and the process being used. I don’t have any objection to the substance of the proposal, nor to the substance of the Maine and Nebraska laws. Since my argument is based on the process being used, not the substance of the proposal, the fact that Maine and Nebraska have different allocation systems does not, in itself, undercut my argument. You’re the one citing the statutes in those two states, but to be relevant to the process argument, you have to identify the process used to pass those two laws. If they were passed by the Maine and Nebraska Legislatures, then they are completely irrelevant to my argument. If, on the other hand, they were passed by the people of those two states directly in a referendum, that may cause me to re-examine my position.

But you’re the one relying on those laws as a counter-argument. To do that, you have to identify the process used to enact them. Unless you do that, they don’t really have much relevance.

As for the “pretty sure it’s a quibble” argument - well, all I can say is that the little quibble whether the Florida courts were usurping the power of the Florida Legislature in 2000, contrary to Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 of the federal Constitution, was one of the reasons the SCOTUS handed the election to Bush. We can argue whether SCOTUS was correct till the cows come home (and on these boards, we have :rolleyes: ), but you can’t deny that the interpretation of Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 was a key aspect to the Court’s final decision.

42

  1. No, he did not. He did bring up some interesting points, I’ll admit.

  2. That doesn’t even mention either of those two states :wally In fact-look at his post right above this one where he admits he has no idea of how the laws in Maine & Nebraska were passed. :rolleyes: Dude- try reading. :rolleyes:

  3. That’s very nice- he has an “opinion”. Oddly, out of the millions of voters and lawyers out there- no one else has seen fit to agree with him. You’d think that if it was so obviously Unconstitutional- somebody else might have seen that. :dubious: There are lawyers in Colorado you know- even Constitutional ones I would dare say. No editorials? No website? Nothing that says “Hey- don’t bother to vote for it- it isn’t legal anyway”. Ya think that the dudes who wrote the damm proposed law might actually know something about the law, and wouldn’t bother to waste a milllion bucks or so on something somebody on a message board could figure out. Without- it seems- reading the actual text of the proposed law. Interesting that without even knowing what it says - someone can say “yes, that’s Unconsitutional”. :dubious: Tell ya what- find me someone who can practice before the Supreme Court or is a noted Consitutional law expert that says it is* clearly * UnConsitutional, and I’ll agree you’re right. But I ain’t gonna believe some dude on a message board. I ask “cite”? Not his damn opinion or your damn opinion - I want some recognized authority on that type of law as a cite. If you don’t got one- all you have is opinion . Oh, and if you get one of those experts that says something like “Well, it could be challenged…” or something like that- then I’ll concede exactly that- that there are grounds for a Constitutional law challenge.

Oh don’t get me wrong. Northern Piper sounds like a damn smart guy. But Piper- are you authorized to practice before the US Supreme Court? Are you a noted expert on US Constitutional law? Does the fact that no one can find either of those two categories that agree with your analysis in any way give you pause? Did you find and read the actual proposed law itself? Do you think that the dudes who wrote the proposed law might be just be experts in that field? Did you check the similar laws in Maine & Nebraska to see if they were passed by referendum?

43

Well, the 10 most populous states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, NJ, and GA) have just over half the population.

But with the electoral college, how many more states does a candidate need to win in order to become president? Just one more! (North Carolina)

44

We could recreate the Federalist Papers here if I was smart enough.

That this country is a republic, rather than a democracy, is a good thing. Anything that creates a buffer between the populist whims of the moment and the actions of the government, or the makeup of that government is a good thing. The Electoral College is just one of the pieces that accomplish that.

DrDeth, I’ll grant that the assumption on both sides of this amendement is that if it passes, it will be valid. That was my assumption before I started this thread. Northern Piper has made a very strong argument that it will not be. He may be wrong, but he’s certainly made a good enough case that I have no doubt this will be in court on November 3rd if it passes, and I would expect it to be shot down.

It may be that Maine and Nebraska have not been challenged because they have not yet actually split the vote. It may be that they have not been challenged because it was the legislatures that passed the laws, as is their unquestioned right. That seems to me to be more likely.

45

GRYFFINDOR in 2004!

(I’m sorry, I’m sorry…I just couldn’t help myself.)
:cool: back atcha

46

DrDeth, I’m afraid I find it very difficult to continue the discussion with you. I was under the impression that this is place for debate and exchange of views. I’ve put forward an argument why this particular proposal may raise constitutional problems, because of the process being followed.

You disagree. Fair enough, I don’t pretend to be an authority. But your response boils down to two points:

a) you’ve not seen anyone else make the argument I’ve put forward, so it must be wrong;

b) the existence of laws in Maine and Nebraska providing for proportional splitting of the electoral vote means that the Colorado proposal must be constitutional.

The first is simply a call to unspecified negative authority. It’s not a particularly helpful arguing technique, and I’m afraid when presented with it, I just ignore it.

Your second argument, as Otto, This Year’s Model and I have pointed out, ignores the fact that the objection here is to the process being followed, not to the substance. Since you’re the one who keeps dragging those examples forward as proof my argument is flawed, the onus is on you to make the key point that one or both of those laws was adopted by a plebescite similar to the Colorado one. Failing that, the fact that those laws are on the books in two other states is irrelevant.

You’ve also suggested that the argument is not worth paying attention to because it’s just being made by some anonymous guy on a message board. Well, that works both ways - I could say your argument is support of the Colorado proposal is meaningless, because it’s just being made by some anonymous guy on a message board. Of course, that would suggest we’re all wasting our time here, doesn’t it? I don’t think that’s the case - I enjoy the discussion here, and I think that in liberal democracy, citizens should carry on such discussions (setting aside for the moment that I’m not a citizen of this particular liberal democracy :wink: ). Constitutional law is not the exclusive preserve of constitutional experts and SCOTUS. But if you think that posts on a message board are worthless, why do you bother posting or reading?

Finally, you’ve asked about my qualifications. That cuts both ways. Why should we pay any attention to your positions unless you’re a noted constitutional scholar or have argued in front of SCOTUS? If that’s a valid reason to discount my argument, isn’t it an equally valid reason to discount your argument? :dubious:

I don’t normally do this, since I prefer to rely on the rigour of debate rather than calls to authority, but since you asked, I do hold an LL.M. in constitutional law from Yale University. What’s your qualification to discuss constitutional law?

Oh, and what Otto said in post # 39, in fine.

:stuck_out_tongue:
*This will be my last post on this thread for a while, because I’m off to Bagpipe Camp this morning. Play nice while I’m away, everyone. *

47

Dude- there is a difference between “in my opinion, this law is a bad idea because it weakens Colorado’s voice” or “In my opinion, this law is a good law because is makes CO’s voice louder”. Those are opinions. But when someone posts “the law is bad because it is Unconsitutional” then you’re arguing facts. To wit- either the Law *is or is not * Constitutional. There is no real opinion on this (unless you counts the Court’s “opinion”). You don’t need any qualifications to state an opinion- but you do need a cite or qualifications to state a fact. Everyone here is equal in opinions, few are qualified to make statements of fact (unless you’re Cecil :smiley: ). To make a statement of fact- you back it with a “cite”.

Next- “extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof”. If someone comes here and claims that the Martians have landed- they are required to come up with shitloads of proof. The skeptics are not required to prove that the Martians have not landed. You made an extraordinary statement- that a proposed Law, written by supposedly competent lawmakers- is Unconstitutional. Apparently without even reading the law. :dubious: Thus,* you* are required to back up that statement with a cite. I can just say “I doubt it” and “cite please”- with no citation at all. “Burden of proof” rests on you in this case.

I am not claiming anything as to whether or not prop 36 is Constitutional or not- I have no idea. I did point out two things that poked holes in your argument:

  1. There are similar laws on the books in other states, and those laws are not Unconstitutional. Whether or not those laws are close enough is for you to find out and show- again- the “burden of proof rests on those making extra-ordinary claims”.

  2. It is rather odd that no US Lawyer or Lawmaker has apparently seen the same hole that is so obvious to you. You’d think that the opponents of the Bill- strident as they are- would be trumpeting this loudly & shrilly. I know the Scot’s are a sharp bunch, and you’re both a smart and well-educated guy- but are you smarter than every Lawmaker in the state of Colorado? That doesn’t give you pause? (Note- it is possible that out there somewhere is a mimeographed newsletter saying the same thing as you. It is just that extensive Googling couldn’t find anything, despite finding a good number of editorials against it, and articles about it, and our OP concedes that your arguement is the first he’s heard).
    Indeed- in the case of the Martians landing- a fair & reasonable rebuttal could be “But I can’t find any other record of their arrival”. You then have to explain why no one else has seen the Martians. If the response is “because they are invisible”- then I can point out- “How come you can see them?” In this present case- a reasonable rebuttal certainly is “why can’t anyone else see what is so obvious to you?” The burden of proof rests with you.

You do appear to have good qualifications, I concede. But are you up to date on current US case law? I asked my “expert”- my brother. Ok, he is entitled to practice before a US Court. But it 's only the US Tax Court, so he is not that much of an expert. His response was “I would expect that the authors of the bill have a couple good citations up their sleeve, which your Piper-guy doesn’t know about, but the opponents do.” He has no knowledge about the law, or the possible citations, he cheerfully concedes.

So yes. Your opinion is just fine, and that’s the way arguments and debates go on all the time. But “my post is my cite” is not an acceptable answer, no matter how much of an expert you are- unless you’re Cecil. :smiley: There are reasons for this- amoung which is the point we are all anonomous, and anyone can claim to be anyone. Thus saying “I am a big expert here” isn’t much good- even if you are. Linking us to another eauthority (or quoting one) is what we expect. OK? Still friends?

And you do know this argument is going on in the BBQ PIT, right? Not GD? :confused: Different groundrules.

Because it is the PIT, I can say that it is clear that too much bagpipe playing has driven you bonkers. :stuck_out_tongue: Enjoy your camp. I have put in earplugs just in case the sound penetrates half-way around the world… :stuck_out_tongue:

48

Incidentally- there is some way to solve this. Our OP here can take Pipers argument- paraphrased and snipped of course- and email it to both sides of the Prop 36 campaign. Let us see what they say- I’d be interested. I’d laugh myself sick if the answer from the “Yes” camp was “Oops” :smiley:

49

I’m willing if Northern Piper will allow me to. Despite paraphrasing and snipping, the argument and most of the words will still be his.

50

Actually, dumbass, no one stated it as a fact. NP stated it as an opinion. I agreed with his opinion, even used the words “I think.”

Which he did. He cited the text of the Constitution of the United States of America. You may have heard of it, it’s the supreme law of the land? I find no record that either the Maine or Nebraska law has been the subject of a federal constitutional challenge. So if the Colorado initiative passes and is challeneged, it will be what is called a “case of first impression.” There is no direct precedent in the case law. All that opponents and supporters of the initiative can point to is the text of the Constitution, which was quoted already, and the decisions in similar cases, which lo and behold were quoted already.

Whether he read the law or not is irrelevant. His constitutional question has nothing to do with the text of the initiative; it has to do with the process by which the initiative is being put forward. He has cited repeatedly the information that backs up his statement.

No shit.

It has been pointed out to you on mulitple occasions why that is not necessarily relevant.

Have you interviewed every US lawyer or lawmaker to know that none of them have spotted it? Or perhaps does the quote I posted already fulfil your stupid point? Reposting it along with an additional paragraph from the same source:

Oh, look at that, someone else who spotted the hole! And hey, the backers of the initiative obviously considered the problem by selecting Colorado! Is any of this making an impression on this repetition of the same fucking information?

51

It may not be as easy as I thought. I can’t find any way to contact either group on the Internet. I’ll make some calls tomorrow.

I have shot off an email to Maine asking whether their law was legislative or by referendum, and will do the same for Nebraska as soon as the half of their web site that is down comes back up again.

52

Back to the OP, what are the chances of this passing in CO?

53

Thanks. I didn’t find any way to contact either myself- but doesn’t your voting pamphlet have addresses? Perhaps your State assemblyman might know?

I have no problem with waiting for Piper’s OK. It’s murky, and I agree it’s best to err on the side of caution. Ideas can’t be copyrighted, but…

54

It’s too soon for the pamphlet. I figured I’d call the newspapers.

There’s been a thread started in GD that I think will address your question, Captain Lance Murdoch, more than this thread seems to be. Here.

55

Good luck even with that. Most of the groups that advertise on behalf or against these things are shell organizations set up by party hacks or corporations or whatnot. If you do find a number, you might just end up getting an answering machine that’s sitting in a room in an office park somewhere. And maybe, maybe the PR drone that’s been hired to type up the press releases on this will call you back. But probably not, unless you’re with the media.

That’s just my experience with these things, as a reporter. YMMV.

56

No, it isn’t. The plain language of the United States Consitution assigns the authority to determine the manner of elector selection to the state legislatures.

57

The Constitution says perjury is legal and fun.

58

And it is a fact that the United States Constitution assings the authority to determine the method of choosing each state’s electors to the state legislature.

Lawmakers have been writing blatantly unconstitutional laws from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the Patriot Act, and for all the time in between. It’s not that they don’t know better; it’s that they believe (alas, usually correctly) that they can get away with it. Certainly, there is nothing in the least “extraordinary” about (another) unconstitutional law being proposed or adopted.

59

I know this is the Pit – and maybe we should take this into two “splinter” debates over in GD – but let’s maybe keep this civil? I’m interested to find out who, in the state of Colorado, authorizes a proposition to be put on the ballot, and if there are any limits to what may be placed on the ballot.

If the legislature has to approve it, then the Federal condition has been met. If the legislature is bound by State law to obey the will of the electorate, then the Federal condition has been met (because a power delegated to the State has been further delegated to the people). Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea how to check Colorado’s laws for this. It appears that the above cite, however belligerent, is our best stab at the truth for now.

Anyone?

60

A citizen’s initiative in Colorado bypasses the legislature. They may alter either state law or the state constitution. By collecting enough signatures on a petition, a proposition or an amendment is put on the ballot. If it passes, it automatically becomes either law or part of the constitution. It is also possible for the legislature to sponsor a ballot initiative, but that was not done in this case. I know this is brief - hope it helps - I’m rushed trying to write my post for GD.

By the way, the answer from Maine was that their law was passed by the Maine legislature. Nebraska did not understand the question. I’m trying again.