“Project 2025”: Conservative master plan to end democracy?

[NWRMidnight]

Mods, please remove, double post.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Nope. Wrong on both points.

1) first, regardless of how many it could take in theory we have a decent idea of how many it would take in practice as many of the largest states are democratic leaning. Second, it would be overall much easier simply because it would require fewer than two thirds of states. As far as flipping their legislatures you only need to flip each state’s once as once it is enacted it’s there until repeal.

2) what the founders wanted the electoral college to do is irrelevant. The one and only question is if this is within the powers of the states to do. The only line in the constitution that relates to this says the electors will be awarded in the manner in the manner state legislatures direct. That’s it. End of story. They could also award electors based on a farting competition if they chose despite this presumably not being what the founders envisioned.

In this case the electors would be awarded in the manner the legislatures direct, keeping with the literal exact method stated in the constitution.

I think it should be abolished too but it’s very obviously unnecessary to abolish it in order to accomplish the same goal. Edit: as with everything this requires reforming the court as SCOTUS Calvinball will derail it but that’s not a legal argument, it’s a political one. (And one that is necessary for democrats to pass almost any laws again)

1) the problems are still the same, just on a smaller scale. That doesn't change based on the number of states required which is also based on various combinations and possible outcomes. In fact you just shown why it could be more difficult for it to ever happen and maintain via laws because of the very fact that state legislators can repeal the laws every 2 to 4 years, and that is if they can get enough states to even flip to make it happen the first time. If it was so easy, why is it that after 20 years, there are only 17 states for a total of 209 electorial votes who have joined the NPVIC? And they have't even made it to the legal arguments in court yet.

2) LOL! Even legal scholars argue that it is dependent on interpretation. But what do they know. You know everything and and it's everyone else who is always wrong. Even though that has been proven false over the years. I know, you call it Calvin Ball rulings when they rule opposite of your opinion, and I have to agree that is true much of the time, but not always.

It's sad that you don't even understand that legal interpretation of the constitution includes attempting to accurately interpret the founding fathers intent. That is partially what leads to court rulings being different than we expected, as well as amendments when it was found that the language in the constitution is to vague, or did not give the results the founding fathers intended. Which is exactly how the 12th amendment came about concerning the Electorial College.

There hasn't been a case tried in the SCOTUS, against the states who have joined the NOVIC yet as non of the those state laws can go into effect until they reach the 270 electorial votes. Legal scholars widely anticipate there will be significant legal challenges based on various reasons.

But again, I guess they don't know what they are talking about. And only you do. So in your eyes, because you believe you know all, I am wrong. Which I could be, which is why I said most likely, knowing that I could be wrong. Yet, You don't leave room in your arrogance to possibly be wrong. Even though history has shown otherwise. Oh wait. I forgot, all those rulings where all Calvin Ball rulings

I guess we will have to wait and see, if it ever happens in our lifetime.

 

[Brainonska511]

This seems to be a decent response to Project 2025...It's Project 2028:

View attachment 132340

1-2: absolutely; though "codifying" something only matters if you have people that won't simply ignore the statutes or constitution as written (looking at you conservative judges)
3: term limits for SCOTUS - kind of meh on this. It should really be expand the court a lot; cases then get chosen by a random assortment of judges and heard by another random assortment.
4: absolutely; anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows that even the Founding Fathers knew the EC was flawed once they saw it in action
5: yes
6: Probably only works for broadcast media, which is an ever-shrinking pie
7: Sure
8: Yes
9: No. If anything, Congressional salaries and staffing budgets should be higher. These people need to maintain two residences and travel between their district and DC. Making their salaries artificially low either opens the door to corruption or only rich people would run
10-11: yes
12: Why stop at mega-churches?

 

[Brainonska511]

2) LOL! Even legal scholars argue that it is dependent on interpretation. But what do they know. You know everything and and it's everyone else who is always wrong. Even though that has been proven false over the years. I know, you call it Calvin Ball rulings when they rule opposite of your opinion, and I have to agree that is true much of the time, but not always.

Many legal scholars can suck eggs given that their institutions have let conservative BS "scholarship" get laundered into the mainstream by a continuous JAQing off process.

 

[fskimospy]

1) the problems are still the same, just on a smaller scale. That doesn't change based on the number of states required which is also based on various combinations and possible outcomes. In fact you just shown why it could be more difficult for it to ever happen and maintain via laws because of the very fact that state legislators can repeal the laws every 2 to 4 years, and that is if they can get enough states to even flip to make it happen the first time. If it was so easy, why is it that after 20 years, there are only 17 states for a total of 209 electorial votes who have joined the NPVIC? And they have't even made it to the legal arguments in court yet.

2) LOL! Even legal scholars argue that it is dependent on interpretation. But what do they know. You know everything and and it's everyone else who is always wrong. Even though that has been proven false over the years. I know, you call it Calvin Ball rulings when they rule opposite of your opinion, and I have to agree that is true much of the time, but not always.

It's sad that you don't even understand that legal interpretation of the constitution includes attempting to accurately interpret the founding fathers intent. That is partially what leads to court rulings being different than we expected, as well as amendments when it was found that the language in the constitution is to vague, or did not give the results the founding fathers intended. Which is exactly how the 12th amendment came about concerning the Electorial College.

There hasn't been a case tried in the SCOTUS, against the states who have joined the NOVIC yet as non of the those state laws can go into effect until they reach the 270 electorial votes. Legal scholars widely anticipate there will be significant legal challenges based on various reasons.

But again, I guess they don't know what they are talking about. And only you do. So in your eyes, because you believe you know all, I am wrong. Which I could be, which is why I said most likely, knowing that I could be wrong. Yet, You don't leave room in your arrogance to possibly be wrong. Even though history has shown otherwise. Oh wait. I forgot, all those rulings where all Calvin Ball rulings

I guess we will have to wait and see, if it ever happens in our lifetime.

I didn't say it was easy, just that it's much easier than an amendment. As for repealing membership in it that's unlikely - any state where dems are likely to get a trifecta means the GOP is very unlikely to get a counter trifecta and that's the only way it would be repealed.

As far as interpreting the Constitution intent is used when the language is vague - here it is literally the clearest possible language. Legislatures choose how their electors are awarded, period. End of story. Like I said they could pass a law to award them based on a fart competition despite that being against the Founders' intent. They could also pass a law that awarded them all to the Democratic candidate no matter what. Absolute authority.

EDIT: I mean if 'doing something the founders wouldn't have wanted' was a thing the filibuster would be unconstitutional. It isn't because the founders fucked up and what the Senate is doing is within its powers.

 

[Indus]

This seems to be a decent response to Project 2025...It's Project 2028:

View attachment 132340

You also need a slogan that is more powerful than MAGA.

Like a simple army slogan:

WE LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND!

 

[Pens1566]

Minor quibble ... it should be "Project 2029".

 

[cytg111]

Couple of people needs to go to prison with a "cant pardon" tattoo on their foreheads.

 

[Indus]

Couple of people needs to go to prison with a "cant pardon" tattoo on their foreheads.

Basically a ceausescu trial and outcome.

As shocking as it was.. even the Romanians knew they couldn't turn the page while they were alive with their loyalists.

 

[Pens1566]

Basically a ceausescu trial and outcome.

As shocking as it was.. even the Romanians knew they couldn't turn the page while they were alive with their loyalists.

View attachment 132448

Splitting hairs, but I've always preferred the Mussolini-like ending.

 

[feralkid]

Couple of people needs to go to prison with a "cant pardon" tattoo on their foreheads.

Something like that...