Dem introduces bills to eliminate Electoral College, stop presidents from pardoning themselves

[redleghunter]

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a vocal critic of President Trump, on Thursday introduced two bills to eliminate the Electoral College and prevent presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members.

Dem introduces bills to eliminate Electoral College, stop presidents from pardoning themselves

 

[Radagast]

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a vocal critic of President Trump, on Thursday introduced two bills to eliminate the Electoral College and prevent presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members.

Dem introduces bills to eliminate Electoral College, stop presidents from pardoning themselves

Goes to show that truth is even stranger than the Onion or the Babylon Bee.

 

[redleghunter]

Goes to show that truth is even stranger than the Onion or the Babylon Bee.

It’s going to be interesting to find out how much the Democrats have changed from my dad’s era.

I was going to post the Cortez 70% income tax bracket article but have just dismissed the media’s obsession with a freshmen Rep.

 

[SinoBen]

Socialism, Communism, Marxism and varieties thereof are antichrist, evil and a tool of satan.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I don’t see how either of these bills is Constitional. Certainly, eliminating the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Limiting the pardon power probably would too, I suspect, although I don’t think that is quite as clear.

 

[miamited]

Hi RLH,

I agree with both of those propositions. I don't think that any president should have the authority to pardon themselves or a family member. We don't let judges pardon themselves or their own family. I would also like to be rid of the electoral college. I honestly don't see any reason why we need the electoral college with the ability to override the popular vote.

I also didn't read the Ocasio-Cortez claim to be that she was suggesting that we tax any income at 60-70%. She just used a reference period of a time in which the U.S. apparently did tax high income earners with a stacked tax rate that did use to reach those percentages on incomes over $10 million. I wasn't paying taxes then and so I don't know if that was the case or not. But, never did she say that she wanted to implement a 70% tax rate.

Her position, as I believe the accounts of her claim do point out, is that she doesn't see any reason why we don't tax the very tops of high income earner's incomes, at a higher rate. So, what she is referencing is that a person who makes more than $10 million dollars would pay 10% on the first $75,000. There would be a different rate, say 15% on the bracket of income between $75,000 to $125,000. Then another percentage rate on the next bracket of income and so on. Yes, when someone made more than $10 million dollars, then the tax percentage on the amount of their income over $10 million would be taxed at a fairly hefty rate.

This could actually be a positive for the general population in that high income earners might choose to use their money to pay wages when they got near the $10 million mark rather than just put it in their pocket. However, for those who are familiar with tax laws, the ultimate outcome may not be a whole lot different than what high income earners are paying today.

Today one's entire income is taxed at the rate established by their total income. So, if a man makes $10 million then he pays the rate of tax that applies to those who make that kind of money on every dollar of his income beginning with dollar number one that he makes on January first of every year. Under the system that the Rep. is referencing, that same person would only pay 10% on the first $75,000, another smaller percentage up to $125,000 and another smaller percentage in gradual steps up to the $10 million mark.

One would actually have to tally up the stacked tax rate against the present tax rate to see if it really is going to be a particularly onerous tax. Needless to say, it won't have any bearing on my taxes...ever!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yarddog]

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a vocal critic of President Trump, on Thursday introduced two bills to eliminate the Electoral College and prevent presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members.

Dem introduces bills to eliminate Electoral College, stop presidents from pardoning themselves

I didn't read it but I hope he understands that a bill can't over turn the Constitution.

 

[redleghunter]

I didn't read it but I hope he understands that a bill can't over turn the Constitution.

Yes I believe it was to just report that within the new majority House ideas like this are being entertained.

 

[The Barbarian]

don’t see how either of these bills is Constitional. Certainly, eliminating the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Limiting the pardon power probably would too, I suspect, although I don’t think that is quite as clear.

Yes, and eliminating the electoral college would be unconstitutional absent an amendment. It is quite possible to eliminate some of the potential for a loser in the popular vote from becoming president, however. If the electors were more accurately assigned to reflect state populations, it would prevent some of that from happening.

This idea stems from a legal principal established over three centuries ago in Anglo-American law. That rule is that no person may be a judge in his or her own case.
...
If such a self-pardon were issued, it could be challenged in court as an abuse of the Constitution, a violation of the pardon power, and not valid. The courts would likely follow the reasoning of the Office of Legal Counsel that a president may not issue a self-pardon.
Unpacked: Can a president pardon himself?

 

[Arcangl86]

If you actually read the article, you will find that the "bills" he submitted were Constitutional amendments.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you actually read the article, you will find that the "bills" he submitted were Constitutional amendments.

That would be the way to go.

 

[SinoBen]

I've never been to America but I understand why the Electoral College system in your Constitution is crucial and genius. I would even take the hard stand and say that all Christians should support/uphold it because it is in line with Biblical ethos.... in contrast to so called "democracy".

Here is where pure democracy unleashed can be trouble:
8 wolves and 2 lambs votes on menu for lunch.

Democrats all, it seems, have gone Left and they want majority rule. Under the delusion/Antichrist, majority rule = Tyranny of the Majority. The majority then becomes a tool of the elitists who control them and they (the masses) won't even know it.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've never been to America but I understand why the Electoral College system in your Constitution is crucial and genius. I would even take the hard stand and say that all Christians should support/uphold it because it is in line with Biblical ethos.... in contrast to so called "democracy".

America is a Constitutional representative democracy. Russia is not a democracy. North Korea is not a democracy. Venezuela is not a democracy. China is not a democracy.

Here is where pure democracy unleashed can be trouble:
8 wolves and 2 lambs votes on menu for lunch.

In an autocracy, a wolf decides for four lambs what will be for lunch.

In a constitutional democracy, the wolves and lambs must comply with the rights outlined in the constitution.

Democrats all, it seems, have gone Left and they want majority rule.

Historically, democracies have been much better at giving citizens a stable and livable society.

Under the delusion/Antichrist, majority rule = Tyranny of the Majority. The majority then becomes a tool of the elitists who control them and they (the masses) won't even know it.

That can happen. But notice that the elitists are now on the defensive, as the law is closing in on them.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I've never been to America but I understand why the Electoral College system in your Constitution is crucial and genius. I would even take the hard stand and say that all Christians should support/uphold it because it is in line with Biblical ethos.... in contrast to so called "democracy".

Here is where pure democracy unleashed can be trouble:
8 wolves and 2 lambs votes on menu for lunch.

Democrats all, it seems, have gone Left and they want majority rule. Under the delusion/Antichrist, majority rule = Tyranny of the Majority. The majority then becomes a tool of the elitists who control them and they (the masses) won't even know it.

I am curious as to why you think the electoral college is a good thing.

I am actually undecided - I see good and bad in it.

 

[SinoBen]

I am curious as to why you think the electoral college is a good thing.

I am actually undecided - I see good and bad in it.

Maybe I should ask the "bad" that you see, after all I am far far from vested or knowledgeable in this.

I think it provides well balanced compromise between selection by congress and direct election by citizens. The best of both worlds if you like.

PraegerU has a nice short video itemising the pros.:
- protects against tyranny of the majority (though there are already some erosion via legislation)
- encourages coalition building (of the States)
- discourages voter fraud or election stealing (by spreading the risk, you have 538 electors, though there - has been some poorly chosen electors whereby you got unworthy back stabbers (aka faithless electors))

I've also read some pros and cons - example from The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College - SmartAsset but I reckon the cons presented are weak.

Here in Australia we have a Prime Minister selected by the members of government namely the Lower House, generally the Leader of the winning/majority Party. The actual person appointing the PM is a representative of the Queen of England. Anyway we citizens don't get a say and worse, at the whim of the polls (manipulated probably), the party can get spooked and PMs can get booted out and replaced with someone else. Imagine that... 5 Prime Ministers in 5 years.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Maybe I should ask the "bad" that you see, after all I am far far from vested or knowledgeable in this.

I think it provides well balanced compromise between selection by congress and direct election by citizens. The best of both worlds if you like.

PraegerU has a nice short video itemising the pros.:
- protects against tyranny of the majority (though there are already some erosion via legislation)
- encourages coalition building (of the States)
- discourages voter fraud or election stealing (by spreading the risk, you have 538 electors, though there - has been some poorly chosen electors whereby you got unworthy back stabbers (aka faithless electors))

I've also read some pros and cons - example from The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College - SmartAsset but I reckon the cons presented are weak.

Here in Australia we have a Prime Minister selected by the members of government namely the Lower House, generally the Leader of the winning/majority Party. The actual person appointing the PM is a representative of the Queen of England. Anyway we citizens don't get a say and worse, at the whim of the polls (manipulated probably), the party can get spooked and PMs can get booted out and replaced with someone else. Imagine that... 5 Prime Ministers in 5 years.

In practice, faithless electors don’t happen. Pretty much, if a candidate wins a state, they get all electoral votes for that state. There are a couple exceptions they distribute electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in that state.

We have some states we know will go Democrat (California, New York, etc) and some we know will go Republican (Texas, etc). So these states’ electoral votes are basically taken for granted. All the attention is focused on a couple of swing states (like Ohio). So, in practice, it is the voters in a couple of states who decide every election - not the country as a whole.

 

[mark kennedy]

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a vocal critic of President Trump, on Thursday introduced two bills to eliminate the Electoral College and prevent presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members.

Dem introduces bills to eliminate Electoral College, stop presidents from pardoning themselves

Nothing all that new, don't worry, it will never get past the Senate. I still remember Birch Bayh working with Bob Dole to get rid of the electoral college. As far as a President pardoning himself, that is pure fantasy, no such powers exist because in order for a pardon to be passed you would have to be convicted of crimes that would have removed you from office.

 

[Radagast]

In practice, faithless electors don’t happen.

There were quite a few in 2016. Ten, I believe.

 

[Radagast]

Here in Australia we have a Prime Minister selected by the members of government namely the Lower House, generally the Leader of the winning/majority Party. The actual person appointing the PM is a representative of the Queen of England. Anyway we citizens don't get a say and worse, at the whim of the polls (manipulated probably), the party can get spooked and PMs can get booted out and replaced with someone else. Imagine that... 5 Prime Ministers in 5 years.

Our Prime Minister is essentially what Americans call the House Majority Leader. Like the other ministers, he or she is double-hatted in both Legislative and Executive roles.

It works for us because the Queen (or rather, the Governor General representing her) often fills the role that the Constitution does in the US. For example, in the US, the Constitution spells out the date of the election; in Australia, the Governor General announces a date.

Contrary to what you say, we Australians do "get a say," in that we know before an election who the alternative PMs are. A difference with the US is that the US has procedures for replacing a sitting president which almost never get used. Nowadays, we Australians replace a sitting PM at the drop of a hat.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

There were quite a few in 2016. Ten, I believe.

You’re link says there were 7 - 5 from Clinton, 2 from Trump.

Regardless, faithless electors (at least in modern times) have never changed the outcome of the election.