Tenth Amendment Center | The Power of the Oath and Holding Them to It

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 9 months ago to Culture
47 comments | Share | Flag

Step one, stop letting them overstep their authority.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Are you saying that election law in Florida mandates that if I write in Mitt Romney or Mickey Mouse for President that this will be counted as a vote for Clinton (assuming she scores more votes than any other non-write in candidate)? This sounds incredible and illogical to me since it would never effect the outcome unless, of course, Mickey Mouse or Romney won. Why not simply not count any write ins? That would achieve the same result without the need for "flipping." If it's not too much trouble, could you give us a citation to that law. Thank you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    at least! They can always band together in coalitions on certain subjects of agreement but the cronyism would be stopped .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Florida for sure takes the fact you voted and turns all of those into the winner take all column. Unless they are rejected ballots. But you have to have at least one vote more than the other guy which is what the supreme court determiend on Gore vs. Bush. Even so Bush got the important vote the Electoral IN Florida so the popular really didn't matter.

    Now as to voting on other candidates in other races or on measures and questions and propositions I am not sure at all if leaving the Presidential line blank would still cause the autoflip. Still looking. Information on that part is not forthcoming but indications are the vote is flipped FOR ALL candidate races more often than not.

    I did find this Make Our Vote Count Act which is the back up for having to face up to a None Of The Above election with a clear less than fifty % not registering and not voting. That would be Consent Withdrawn.

    California Could Break Country's Electoral College System
    democracychronicles.com › ALL NEWS › AMERICA
    If it got on the ballot and passed, California would apportion electoral votes ... the votes of just a few thousand voters in a couple of smaller states, while largely ... Moreover, the “winner take-all” system of awarding electoral votes does not ... Once California enacts the Make Our Vote Count Act, Presidential candidates will ...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All states except Maine and Nebraska are winner take all electoral votes in the general election. If you are referring to write in votes, I know of no state where "flipping" (i.e. reassignment of write in votes) takes place. Am I wrong about that? Which states are you talking about? Many states simply do not count write in votes unless the write in candidate has filed some sort of certificate before the election. Is that what you are talking about?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    While it does not mention political parties the federalist papers weighs in on Factions (aka todays lobbyists). What else, if not a Faction, is a political party?

    The resolution to Factions, according to the Federalist papers, is more Factions....

    A free market approach to political party's is the only realistic solution - we need a dozen more more parties in ever election.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That might be true if those who do not vote would have voted against tyranny. They may be the ones voting against tyranny by not voting when all candidates lead toward tyranny. Both main parties today lead to tyranny but just from different directions. Both, at the present time, want just a little more control over the people, thus less liberty. Today's Libertarians are not any better.
    In the far future when citizens learn to get out of their adolescent period adulthood can be obtained. Childhood was left with the establishment of the USA but with a lot of crybaby noise until settling into the present adolescent BS of today. Becoming an adult nation of liberty does not look very hopeful at present with so much desire to be further imprisoned with walls and more and more intrusive laws due to an endemic (sic) distrust of liberty for all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The 10th is the foundation by which we we wrest control from the fed government. Just because the populace has elected those who do not honor their oaths doesn't mean, if they wisen up, they will continue to do so; At that time, the 10th will be the constitutional vehicle for reclamation.

    To rectify, how would you suggest proceed? Armed revolution? Running away, hiding, and starting anew? Vote and hope for change?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, the Constitution doesn't mention political parties and our first President, Washington, was opposed to them. But in addition to the changes you mentioned, the Twelfth Amendment also changed the election of the Executive Branch. It had been that the second-place vote-getter in the Presidential race became Vice-President. There was no selection of running mates and the likelihood of two individuals from the same party occupying both Executive Branch positions was slim to none. The Twelfth Amendment changed it to explicitly make the Vice President of the same party as the President - eliminating the value of getting runner-up and destroying the non-partisan nature of the original Executive Branch.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Constitution does not mention political parties

    12th changed the Vice President Jefferson
    Twelfth Amendment. an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1804, providing for election of the president and vice president by the electoral college: should there be no majority vote for one person, the House of Representatives (one vote per state) chooses the president and the Senate the vice president.


    Political Parties are not mentioned in the constitution and the federal government has no input into how they select candidates nor does the constitution specify how vice president as a candidate are to be chosen. This is left up to each political party and to some extent state laws on the choosing of electors.

    Most have fallen into the common usage system of the Presidential Canddate choosing his or her running mate meaning only one vote is needed

    The States have no power over that either but may have some power on the selection of electors. However once elected the States have no power over who they select as President.

    Of connected interest the post civil war amendments were under three Presidents with three different purposes.

    13th Abolished Slavery and Involuntary Servitude Lincoln.

    14th Gave the Federal Government veto power over State laws Johnson

    15th first vetoed by Johnson was under Grant.

    The fight after the Civil War was on how to treat the returning States. 1. As a former Nation and 2. as returning to USA rebellious states.

    One sticking point was the North's come home to roost insistence on the 3/5ths rule. This resulted in the Northern and Southern Democrats uniting and protected the Souths Jim Crow Laws and the North's Black Laws until the Civil Rights Act of 1966. That was the only time the Democrats have supported Civil Rights. .

    The second connection has to do with power. 16th and 17th Amendments in 1913. One gave control of citizens to the Federal Government through Income tax and the other dismantled the checks and balances system in favor of the federal government.

    Summing it up the 12th was certainly the starting point in that it allowed the parties to run uncontrolled and ended up with the mulitple becoming two becoming one to the detriment of the citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed. I still think the Twelfth Amendment was the start of it all - from political parties to a tyrannical Executive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 8 months ago
    Methinks many a politician these days views the swearing in process as some antiquated ceremonious hoop to jump through that at least serves well for a photo op.
    In old dino's improved version for a real "We The People" government, I'd be using such photos and videos as criminal court evidence.
    King Barry would be my first defendant. The evil hag will be in line.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But first check to see if you are in a winner take all state. If that is true your write in will automatically flip to the winner with the most votes Clinton or Trump or whomever.

    In that case leave the presidential blocks unchecked and DO NOT do a write in.

    As for other issues on the ballot it depends on the state if voting for any of those and not voting the complete ballot will cause an automatic vote. You should check with your local precinct or country elections officials.

    Winner Steal All is responsible for a lot of the mess we're in today. If you have it think about backing a move to get rid of it. Without 'Winner Steal All is useful for a number of things one of them claiming landslides and mandatres when squeaker is more accurate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It might have once. Now all it means is that someone else's vote counts and your doesn't - hastening the progression towards tyranny.

    Instead, vote by write-in. That is where you can register your opposition.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 8 months ago
    AJ,
    each and every president has over stepped their authority and as time has gone by the pres has over stepped more and more. OUR problem is the congress which WE elect just cowers to who ever the pres is. in the long run we have been are being and will continue to be screwed by who ever sits in the oval office. so much for the 10th.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately, enough "to-not", perhaps only being a token in reality, leaves the direction of the country to the few sufficiently saturated by propaganda and emotion into docility.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the fiinal analysis to quote just about everyone. Vote or Don't Vote. Register or Don't Register. Not doing so means you reject the system When near 50% sometimes over 50% reject the system isn't there a lesson in there somewhere?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well said. Sobering truth. Most are complicit either by choice or, in the sense of elections, lack of choice.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
    The long version.

    "As MacDuff’s young son remarked in the Shakespeare play MacBeth, a traitor is one who lies. Swearing to uphold the Constitution and then intentionally assist in undermining is to lie.

    These words may sound harsh, but Americans must decide whether they think the Constitution is worth speaking unpleasant truth. It goes without saying that many of the people who wrote the Constitution took far more drastic measures to secure our independence.

    If we aren’t willing to call out those who violate their oath to defend Constitution, then all we do is make ourselves liars for claiming to care about its preservation. People enforce rules they believe in. If we won’t insist on constitutional fidelity, then we can’t honestly claim to care much about it. We have reached this point because the nation as a whole has lacked the courage to call out oath-breakers for one reason or another." from the source URL

    The Short Version

    Stop enabling
    Take Control
    Make Changes.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo