UC Irvine's law school dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, has an op-ed in today's Orange County Register in which he says it is time to do away with the Electoral College because it is unconstitutional.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/monday-738457-choose-votes.html
"I got an idea. Let's put something in the Constitution that is unconstitutional."
Does anyone seriously think Chemo would be taking this position had Trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote?
The reason the framers came up with this system is because they didn't want the large population centers to control the elections at the expense of the rural folks. It's still true today. If we decided it all on the popular vote, candidates would only have to campaign in a few places like New York, Florida California, Chicago and Texas.
This guy is so obvious in his biases.
"You're killing me, Erwin."
3 comments:
Getting rid of the Electoral College is a worthy goal. I think it requires a constitutional amendment, not a mere judicial ruling. That is particularly true because a good deal of thought needs to go into how to structure presidential elections without it. Personally, I favor a six month primary season, with primaries every two weeks, with 1-2 states in each of six different regions, dates to be selected by random lottery, then a two month max general election campaign with an order-of-preference ballot among the top four contenders from the primary races. That way, we get a president a majority picked as either their first or second choice.
But Chemerinsky is offering himself as the poster boy for the critique that liberals just want to interpret the constitution to mean whatever it is they'd like to accomplish. Not a good showing.
I posted two connected comments. If the first one didn't show up, I'll try to reconstruct it.
Although it is provided for in the Constitution, the allocation of votes in the Electoral College should be declared unconstitutional
After reading only this far, I thought that Chemerinsky should be disbarred for such a ludicrous assertion. But reading further, the man may be a lazy opportunist who wants the constitution to do all his work for him, but, he is not an idiot, nor ignorant of the law.
Article II of the Constitution creates the Electoral College and defines its membership, but remember that the text of the Constitution is modified by its amendments.
Yes, but to INFER that an explicit provision of the constitution has been nullified by an amendment that never referenced that specific provision is quite a stretch. Its not like Amendment XXI, which said that Amendment XVIII is hereby repealed. Its also not like Amendment XIII, which explicitly banned involuntary servitude, thereby invalidating reference to persons "held to service" in any state. Furthermore, Chemerinsky's argument would invalidate each state having two senators, a compromise that was essential to ratifying the constitution in the first place. Further, the constitution provides that no state shall be deprived of its representation in the senate without its consent. And, as Electoral College representation is based in part on senate representation... This really won't fly.
Post a Comment