Mmm. Sort of. Judicial review is not an explicit constitutional power of the courts.
It can. There is nothing to prevent a later court from overturning an earlier court. Further, the original method of dealing with such things was an amendment, and that remains a way to appeal a SCOTUS ruling.
Not true. As I said, the rules vary from state to state. In some elections the difference has to be less than a certain percentage of votes to count as a tie.
For example, if the law were 0.1% and the vote was 10009 to 10000, that would count as a tie.
I already pointed you to the statistics. Just because you think 3,000,000 is a big number doesn't mean the difference was enough to indicate a popular winner. My point in the post you supposedly read was that people were changing their minds so rapidly that the count (and supposed popular winner) would have been different if it had been held a few days sooner or later.
Regardless, the injustice you speak of is only in your mind. Tell me, do you prefer a federal structure for a nation or a more republican approach?
Since shortly after the Constitution was adopted, the Supreme Court has been recognized as the final adjudicator of what is Constitutional or not. And I am still happy to allow them to perform that duty. I can't imagine where one would find a final adjudication for a law in any other institution of our government.
Of course one court can change the ruling of a past court. And certainly an Amendment can be written should a court rule differently than the population desires. But there is no need to write an amendment if the agrees a law is Constitutional. AGAIN, I'm happy to allow the court to rule on the issue.
In STATE elections various states can have whatever rules they like. In a National Election like the president is, we all need to play by one rule. And certainly any amendment ridding us of the Electoral College (and that WOULD have to be an Amendment) can easily deal with that issue.
Finally, I prefer a structure which actually functions as a national government. Look at this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
That is the part of the Declaration of Independence we all remember. But look at the part that follows:
— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
We not only have the right to change or overthrow our government but the DUTY to do that according to our own Declaration of Independence. At this point I'm suggesting that we should be making the changes that we...as those who consented to be governed...have the right to do.
The Electoral College is something that needs to go in a day and age where the popular vote can be accurately determined. The taxation system is insufferably complex and nowhere near fair. We, as a people, have both the right and duty to change that and any other things we feel needs to be changed.
I'm happy to just make the changes needed to bring the current government into the modern age. But I'm also aware that under the declaration of freedom which resulted in the current government I still have rights and duties in regard to the government I've consented to govern me and my fellow citizens.
I'm not making threats. I merely point out that America is not cast in stone. The Founders of the nation understood that changing times and changing conditions will need a government which can also change.
Frankly, I think that we, if we are to compete on a world stage, need to be willing to move away from the concept that each state is an independent 'nation' joined together for a very limited number of reasons. We need to become a single nation rather than a bunch of states fighting each other.
And I have no idea which, if either, of the political camps you mention that falls into. I don't do that kind of labeling.
