0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Electoral college changes
Posted on 11/9/26 at 4:26 pm to SquatchDawg
Posted on 11/9/26 at 4:26 pm to SquatchDawg
Correct, they simply don’t want to face the very real possibility it could occur. With that said they won’t waste their political capital on the EC, it will come in the form of other Constitutional challenges over citizenship, gun rights, and reclassification of illegally crossing the border. The only thing they have to do is legalize enough future Democrat voters and it’s permanently over regardless of the EC
Posted on 11/9/26 at 4:26 pm to Jbird
quote:
How many Massie types will go in the the Dems?
Does it mean they are not defending the constitution that they took an oath to defend?
Declare them domestic enemies. We either save our country or we don't.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 4:34 pm to Jbird
we just did this thread
pretty bold thinking that the Supreme Court could rule something actually written in the constitution as being unconstitutional
is it possible that an amendment could be put in place that removes the electoral college? Of course, but the process is very steep to change the constitution.
pretty bold thinking that the Supreme Court could rule something actually written in the constitution as being unconstitutional
is it possible that an amendment could be put in place that removes the electoral college? Of course, but the process is very steep to change the constitution.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 4:46 pm to Rip Torner
quote:
Then, said court opines some bs decision about disenfranchising voters and its muted to the point of being worthless.
That would be the equivalent of randomly eliminating everything in Article II ... including the POTUS.
.... a bridge too far even for the DSA
This post was edited on 11/9/26 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 11/9/26 at 4:46 pm to Rip Torner
quote:
liberal majority SC will simply rule the EC unconstitutional
How do you declare the constitution to be unconstitutional?
Posted on 11/9/26 at 5:25 pm to supatigah
The leftist wing of the SC votes in a manner inconsistent with whats in the Constitution on a consistent basis. Thinking that once the Dems win in 28 and add 5 more of them to the SC they wont continue this pattern is pretty naive.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 5:28 pm to NC_Tigah
The blue states haven't been quietly working on this for decades to never use it, and they will immediately add all the previously red states to it next year, so the idea they are doing all of this to never actually put it into place (because it would be a bridge too far or something) seems like an odd position to take.
This post was edited on 11/9/26 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 11/9/26 at 5:32 pm to Tigersforthee
Don’t worry this will all be over by FEB,MARCH the new era will begin.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 5:37 pm to Jbird
It's unconstitutional to go around the electoral college.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 6:24 pm to Tigersforthee
take a step back and think about what I just said
saying something written in the Constitution is unconstitutional is a direct contradiction with itself
now they can definitely push towards an amendment to the constitution
saying something written in the Constitution is unconstitutional is a direct contradiction with itself
now they can definitely push towards an amendment to the constitution
quote:
By definition, text written directly into the U.S. Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, because the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and the standard by which all other laws and actions are measured.
quote:
The Supreme Law: Anything explicitly written in the original text or a properly ratified amendment is part of the Constitution, meaning it is constitutional by definition.
quote:
Internal Conflicts: Different parts of the Constitution can sometimes contradict or create tension with each other (such as states' rights versus federal powers, or free speech versus national security), which requires the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret and balance them. However, a textual provision cannot be "struck down" by the courts the way an ordinary law or executive action can.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 6:38 pm to Jbird
Haven’t there only been like 4 times where someone took office without winning the popular vote? I want to say it happened twice in the 1800’s and then in 2000 and 2016.
Dems spit this out like it happens constantly and that there are tons of times they would’ve won if the electoral college wasn’t a thing.
They also forget Trump won the popular vote in 2024.
Dems spit this out like it happens constantly and that there are tons of times they would’ve won if the electoral college wasn’t a thing.
They also forget Trump won the popular vote in 2024.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 6:51 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Tell me, how exactly can something that is in the Constitution be deemed "unConstitutional"?
Have you seen Ketanji?
The birthright citizenship case was not 9-0. So clearly, some thought it was constitutional and some didn't.
It is in the Constitution, so one side had to be wrong about its interpretation. We just had an example of this, so it's not far-fetched to think it will happen again.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 7:25 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
It is in the Constitution, so one side had to be wrong about its interpretation. We just had an example of this, so it's not far-fetched to think it will happen again.
birthright citizenship is not in the constitution, it is in an amendment to the constitution
Posted on 11/9/26 at 7:29 pm to supatigah
Did you just type that?? Good grief man an amendment means it is added to the Constitution or “amended”. Quite possibly the dumbest statement ever typed lol
Posted on 11/9/26 at 7:30 pm to Jbird
DEMS will go scorched earth! It will be a helluva fight....and they are vicious politicians.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 7:40 pm to Rip Torner
a constitutional amendment is a change to the original constitution from 1787
the electoral college is part of the original constitution text from 1787
birthright citizenship was in the 14th amendment which was passed in 1868
something in the original constitution from 1787 can not by definition be unconstitutional
an amendment to the constitution has never been ruled unconstitutional but it is possible an amendment could be as it was not a part of the original constitution but instead was an addition or change to it
the 18th amendment was ratified in 1919 and while it was not ruled unconstitutional, it was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933
the electoral college is part of the original constitution text from 1787
birthright citizenship was in the 14th amendment which was passed in 1868
something in the original constitution from 1787 can not by definition be unconstitutional
an amendment to the constitution has never been ruled unconstitutional but it is possible an amendment could be as it was not a part of the original constitution but instead was an addition or change to it
the 18th amendment was ratified in 1919 and while it was not ruled unconstitutional, it was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933
Posted on 11/9/26 at 7:42 pm to Rip Torner
quote:
Did you just type that?? Good grief man an amendment means it is added to the Constitution or “amended”. Quite possibly the dumbest statement ever typed lol
I quoted you so you cant edit what you said
now go sit in the corner
Posted on 11/9/26 at 7:44 pm to supatigah
Nothing that you just typed disputes the basic premise that it is in fact in the Constitution lol good grief man did you have a stroke?!
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News