AND THE WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS CONTINUES - Hallo friendsGOOD OF CONEX NEWS, In the article you read this time with the title AND THE WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS CONTINUES, We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article health, Article news, Article sport, Article tips, Article treatment, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title : AND THE WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS CONTINUES
link : AND THE WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS CONTINUES

AND THE WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS CONTINUES

Trump isn’t the biggest 

threat to the Constitution. 

Democrats are.

By: Marc Theissen

The Washington Post

22 March 2019

Who is the biggest threat to our constitutional order? It is not President Trump.

Ever since Trump took office, Democrats have been telling us he is an authoritarian who threatens our system of government. Well, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution. Leading Democrats are promising that, if elected in 2020, they will abolish the electoral college and might also pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices — allowing them to marginalize Americans who do not support their increasingly radical agenda and impose it on an unwilling nation.

The purpose of the electoral college is to protect us from what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” Each state gets to cast electoral votes equal to the combined number of its U.S. representatives (determined by population) and its senators (two regardless of population). The goal was to make sure even the smallest states have a say in electing the president and prevent those with large, big-city populations from dictating to the less populous rural ones.

No wonder Democrats don’t like it. Today, they have become the party of big-city elites, while their support is declining in less populous states of Middle America. Just look at a county-by-county map of the 2016 election — you can actually drive from coast to coast without driving through a single county that voted for Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost in 2016 because millions of once-reliable Democratic working-class voters in the American heartland switched their allegiance to Trump.

Thanks to the electoral college, Democrats have no choice but to try to win at least some of those voters back if they want to win the presidency. But if we got rid of the electoral college, Democrats could write off voters in “fly-over” country and focus on turning out large numbers of their supporters in big cities and populous liberal states such as New York and California. Unburdened by the need to moderate their platform to appeal to centrist voters, they would be free to pursue full socialism without constraint. If voters in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania oppose spending tens of trillions on a Green New Deal and a government take-over of the health-care, energy and transportation sectors of the economy, tough luck.

The electoral college protects us from this kind of unconstrained radicalism, by forcing the political parties to broaden their appeal — which is precisely why more and more Democrats want to get rid of it. Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution required supermajorities for amendments — another wise protection against the tyranny of the majority.

But Democrats would have no such obstacles in dealing with another impediment to their radical agenda: the Supreme Court. Thanks to Trump’s electoral college victory, Republicans have been able confirm two Supreme Court justices and secure a conservative majority. Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for their judicial predicament. They were the ones who announced that they would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during George W. Bush’s final year in office, setting the precedent for Republicans to block President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland. And they were the ones who eliminated the filibuster for federal circuit courts judges — setting the precedent for Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court justices.

Democrats have miscalculated at every turn, and now their solution is to break precedent yet again — by packing the Supreme Court. There have been nine justices on the Supreme Court for the past 150 years. No matter, Democratic candidates including Beto O’Rourke; South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) have all said that, as president, they would consider adding justices to the Supreme Court to secure a left-wing majority. The last president who tried this, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was stopped only because members of his own party rebelled. The Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by the Democrats, correctly declared his plan “an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country.”

It seems unlikely a Democratic president would face such a rebellion today. But unless Democrats win not only the presidency but also a 60-vote Senate majority, they would have to eliminate another minority protection — the legislative filibuster — to pass a court-packing bill. I suspect they would not hesitate to do so.

Taken together, the Democrats are proposing what amounts to a systemic assault on the foundations of our federal system. Democrats are freely pursuing a tyranny of the majority. We’ll see how it plays in Middle America. But if they do, then spare us the overwrought complaints about Trump. You can’t defend the Constitution while trying to tear it up at the same time.

NOTE:  You can see Mr. Thiessen's opinion piece as a serious and reasoned piece of thoughtful analysis or you can see it as just another slam at Democrats, liberals and progressives  and particularly against the newly elected crop of Democrats to the House.  I'm taking the second proposition.

Take his opinion about the Electoral College which was established not to prevent the tyranny of the majority  but in order to get the Southern slave states on board thereby protecting them against the more populous North and threatening their slave owning way of life.  Three million votes, Hillary Clinton's margin of victory,  was not some statistical aberration, but clearly showed the desires of a majority of the American voting public.  The Electoral College upended that result.  

Or take his "If voters in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania oppose spending tens of trillions on a Green New Deal and a government take-over of the health-care, energy and transportation sectors of the economy, tough luck.  The electoral college protects us from this kind of unconstrained radicalism, by forcing the political parties to broaden their appeal — which is precisely why more and more Democrats want to get rid of it."

Problem is, poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans do want to protect the environment, do want better health care and are in favor of alternate energy sources rather than relying on polluting oil and coal.  This is by no means "unconstrained radicalism" but a series of practical and reasonable policies.  One could conclude that the Democratic wins in the 2018 Midterms were precisely mirroring what Americans want in the face of decades of Republican and conservative inaction, Mr. Thiessen's overblown rhetoric to the contrary.     

Already the headlines in the Post and the Times, on the Huffington Post and Politico, are celebrating what they see as the division in the Democratic Party - ultra liberals vs. centrists - rather than what these "divisions" actually represent, a push to more closely align the Democrats' policies and proposals with the desires of a majority of the American public.  Yes, there may be some "extreme" proposals but ditching the Electoral College and the Green New Deal are not among them.  Sure, the fact that Trump won the Presidency thanks to the Electoral College only revealed just how antiquated and unfair is this institution.  It's been said many times that the United States is the only Western democracy that does not elect its leader by direct vote and they seem to do just fine. Why not us? 

As for the Coastal Urban Elites versus the Heartland Conservatives, he's correct.  This is the situation that we find ourselves in today.  But the reason for this is simple:  more Americans have been moving to the East and West Coasts thus draining the heartland of population for several decades now.  There is nothing more definitive when it comes to how people express their preferences than with their feet. (Or moving vans if you like.)  This is the reality.  

Thirty years ago Red states like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana ranked at the bottom of the list for educational attainment, abject poverty, environmental health, the health of their residents, economic prosperity and a whole raft of measures.  Thirty years later?  Nothing had changed.  They still rank at the bottom.  This despite the annual flow of billions upon billions of our tax dollars siphoned from Blue States flowing to Red states in the form of public assistance.  Maybe its time to just face up to the reality that Republican Red States have been ill-governed for decades while the Coastal Blue States have made significant progress in making sure that the well-being of their citizens has greatly improved.  

But be prepared.  This is the kind of battle cry and worse we are going to be seeing between now and November 2020.  

Have A Good Day.  

Thus Article AND THE WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS CONTINUES

That's an article AND THE WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS CONTINUES This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article AND THE WAR AGAINST DEMOCRATS CONTINUES with the link address https://coneknews.blogspot.com/2019/03/and-war-against-democrats-continues.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: