Life is repeat with tradeoffs. In order not to “suppress” even one legitimate voter from casting a ballot, must we open the door to 10 illegitimate voters? 100? 1,000? 10,000?
And if you think that this trade-off is not real, your pockets must be full of turnips from the truck you were just riding on.
STAND UP FOR VALID ELECTIONS!
I think majority should rule on election outcomes AND election laws. Most Americans think showing an id to register/vote is not too much of an ask. The progressive minority are just as guilty as the spittle-flecked neocons in wanting to suppress the votes of people who might vote for the "enemy".
ReplyDeleteThe framers of the Constitution were pretty clever. To go to electing the president by the popular vote if all Americans would require a Constitutional amendment … which the minority would (should) never agree to.
ReplyDeleteWe need a new Constitutional Convention to modernize that archaic wording and content. Things have changed and so should the Constitution. Everyone cites it but it is utterly incomprehensible on its own...unless you are a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteTrusting the current gaggle of geese in DC to write a better Constitution is sheer folly!
ReplyDeleteI would not allow any politicians to participate in a new Constitutional Convention. I would appoint the best American thinkers representing opposing points of view to convene and draft a document that best expresses their modern view of human rights and the limits of governmental power, incorporating all of the amendments currently in force. Naïve, or what?
ReplyDeleteThe wheel is round … often with spokes … in case you are reinventing it.
ReplyDeleteThe amendment prices was invented to keep the Constitution up to date … so it’s not as obsolete as you imply.
Anyone can start the process to change it … even you.
And if there is any chance that the primary focus of the existing Constitution gets scuttled … that the government governs by the consent of the people … your moderation exercise would be a disaster.